From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add an optional timeout clause to isolationtester step. |
Date: | 2020-03-09 07:47:27 |
Message-ID: | 20200309074727.GE96055@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 07, 2020 at 10:46:34AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The arbitrarily-set timeouts that exist in some of the isolation tests
> are horrid kluges that have caused us lots of headaches in the past
> and no doubt will again in the future. Aside from occasionally failing
> when a machine is particularly overloaded, they cause the tests to
> take far longer than necessary on decently-fast machines. So ideally
> we'd get rid of those entirely in favor of some more-dynamic approach.
> Admittedly, I have no proposal for what that would be. But adding yet
> more ways to set a (guaranteed-to-be-wrong) timeout seems like the
> wrong direction to be going in. What's the actual need that you're
> trying to deal with?
As a matter of fact, the buildfarm member petalura just reported a
failure with the isolation test "timeouts", the machine being
extremely slow:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=petalura&dt=2020-03-08%2011%3A20%3A05
test timeouts ... FAILED 60330 ms
[...]
-step update: DELETE FROM accounts WHERE accountid = 'checking'; <waiting ...>
-step update: <... completed>
+step update: DELETE FROM accounts WHERE accountid = 'checking';
ERROR: canceling statement due to statement timeout
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-03-09 07:52:30 | DROP and ddl_command_end. |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-03-09 07:43:25 | Re: Remove win32ver.rc from version_stamp.pl |