Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI
Date: 2022-05-08 17:38:44
Message-ID: 20220508173844.cwfcf6w5ruj6wa7v@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2022-05-08 11:28:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2022-05-05 23:57:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Are you sure there's just one test that's failing? I haven't checked
> >> the buildfarm history close enough to be sure of that. But if it's
> >> true, disabling just that one would be fine (again, as a stopgap
> >> measure).
>
> > I looked through all the failures I found and it's two kinds of failures, both
> > related to the deadlock test. So I'm thinking of skipping just that test as in
> > the attached.
>
> Per lapwing's latest results [1], this wasn't enough. I'm again thinking
> we should pull the whole test from the back branches.

That failure is different from the earlier failures though. I don't think it's
a timing issue in the test like the deadlock check one. I rather suspect it's
indicative of further problems in this area. Potentially the known problem
with RecoveryConflictInterrupt() running in the signal handler? I think Thomas
has a patch for that...

One failure in ~20 runs, on one animal doesn't seem worth disabling the test
for.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-05-08 17:59:09 Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-05-08 16:00:46 Re: First-draft release notes for next week's minor releases