| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <fujii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: tests against running server occasionally fail, postgres_fdw & tenk1 |
| Date: | 2023-02-26 21:09:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20230226210938.wdocpj4mglsrlgc7@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-02-26 15:57:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> However, the other stanza with debug_discard_caches muckery is the
> one about "test postgres_fdw.application_name GUC", and in that case
> ignoring the number of terminated connections would destroy the
> point of the test entirely; because without that, you're proving
> nothing about what the remote's application_name actually looks like.
>
> I'm inclined to think we should indeed just nuke that test. It's
> overcomplicated and it expends a lot of test cycles on a pretty
> marginal feature.
It does seem fairly complicated...
*If* we wanted to rescue it, we probably could just use a transaction around
the SELECT and the termination, which ought to prevent sinval issues.
Not that I understand why that tries to terminate connections, instead of just
looking at application name.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2023-02-26 21:11:45 | Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-02-26 21:03:13 | Re: tests against running server occasionally fail, postgres_fdw & tenk1 |