| From: | Paul Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: SQL:2011 application time |
| Date: | 2025-02-12 17:14:10 |
| Message-ID: | 28522855-4fcb-4309-8a81-6765a30a24fa@illuminatedcomputing.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/12/25 07:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I committed your patch on Sunday, and now it's about 72 hours later.
>
> I've been observing this on cfbot for some time. Before the patch, you could go to cfbot at any
> time and find between 5 and 10 test failures from this problem. And now there are none. So I'm
> calling provisional success on this.
That's great! It's sort of unsatisfying though---and unnerving. I wish when the test failed we knew
what the oids were for the RESTRICT constraint and the just-dropped NO ACTION constraint. (There's
no way to get that after the fact, is there?) I probably won't keep putting time into this, but it
seems like there must still be a hard-to-hit bug in the code for caching query plans. Since the
behavior disappeared, it is more evidence that that's where the real problem lies.
Yours,
--
Paul ~{:-)
pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker | 2025-02-12 17:17:49 | Re: Small memory fixes for pg_createsubcriber |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-02-12 17:13:13 | Re: Track the amount of time waiting due to cost_delay |