From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Wrong return code in vacuumdb when multiple jobs are used |
Date: | 2019-05-04 09:15:04 |
Message-ID: | 20190504091504.GF2174@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 04, 2019 at 10:35:23AM +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> While reading vacuumdb code, I just noticed that it can return 0 if an
> error happen when -j is used, if errors happen on the last batch of
> commands.
Yes, I agree that this is wrong. GetIdleSlot() is much more careful
about that than vacuum_one_database(), so your patch looks good at
quick glance.
> This behavior exists since 9.5. Trivial patch attached. I'm not sure
> that a TAP test is required here, so I didn't add one. I'll be happy
> to do so though if needed.
You could make that reliable by getting a lock on a table using a
two-phase transaction, and your test case from upthread won't fly high
as we have no facility in PostgresNode.pm to keep around a session's
state using psql. FWIW, I am not convinced that it is a case worth
bothering, so no tests is fine.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2019-05-04 09:22:22 | Re: Wrong return code in vacuumdb when multiple jobs are used |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-05-04 08:55:43 | Re: Inconsistent error message wording for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |