| 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 18:23:23 |
| Message-ID: | 2174975.1651602203@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 2022-05-03 01:16:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Irritatingly, it doesn't reproduce (at least not easily) in a manual
>> build on the same box.
> Odd, given how readily it seem to reproduce on the bf. I assume you built with
>> Uses -fsanitize=alignment -DWRITE_READ_PARSE_PLAN_TREES -DSTRESS_SORT_INT_MIN -DENFORCE_REGRESSION_TEST_NAME_RESTRICTIONS
Yeah, I copied all that stuff ...
>> So it's almost surely a timing issue, and your theory here seems plausible.
> Unfortunately I don't think my theory holds, because I actually had added a
> defense against this into the test that I forgot about momentarily...
Oh, hm. I can try harder to repro it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-05-03 18:36:11 | Re: wrong fds used for refilenodes after pg_upgrade relfilenode changes Reply-To: |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-05-03 18:20:25 | Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI |