| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI |
| Date: | 2022-05-03 05:16:46 |
| Message-ID: | 1959496.1651555006@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2022-05-02 23:44:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I can poke into that tomorrow, but are you sure that that isn't an
>> expectable result?
> It's not expected. But I think I might see what the problem is:
> We wait for the FETCH (and thus the buffer pin to be acquired). But that
> doesn't guarantee that the lock has been acquired. We can't check that with
> pump_until() afaics, because there'll not be any output. But a query_until()
> checking pg_locks should do the trick?
Irritatingly, it doesn't reproduce (at least not easily) in a manual
build on the same box. So it's almost surely a timing issue, and
your theory here seems plausible.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amul Sul | 2022-05-03 06:50:43 | Re: Proposal for internal Numeric to Uint64 conversion function. |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2022-05-03 05:02:09 | Re: strange slow query - lost lot of time somewhere |