Re: pgsql: When VACUUM or ANALYZE skips a concurrently dropped table, log i

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgsql: When VACUUM or ANALYZE skips a concurrently dropped table, log i
Date: 2017-12-06 21:31:10
Message-ID: 11630.1512595870@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> What appears to be happening is that a database-wide ANALYZE takes more
>> than a minute under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS, causing isolationtester.c's
>> hardwired one-minute timeout to trigger.

> Is it really our policy that no isolation test can take more than a
> minute on the slowest buildfarm critter?

Well, I think it's a minute per query not per whole test script. But in
any case, if it's taking a longer time than any other isolation test on
the CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS critters, then it's also taking a proportionately
longer time than any other test on every other platform, and is therefore
costing every developer precious time today and indefinitely far into the
future. I continue to say that this test ain't worth it.

It's possible that we could compromise on dropping the steps that test
whole-database VACUUM/ANALYZE; the incremental gain from testing those
scenarios is certainly even less worth its cost than the basic cases.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-12-07 02:25:21 Re: pgsql: When VACUUM or ANALYZE skips a concurrently dropped table, log i
Previous Message Bossart, Nathan 2017-12-06 20:32:38 Re: pgsql: When VACUUM or ANALYZE skips a concurrently dropped table, log i

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2017-12-06 21:46:52 Re: Bitmap scan is undercosted? - overestimated correlation and cost_index
Previous Message David Rowley 2017-12-06 20:44:56 Re: Accessing base table relational names via RelOptInfo