From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: New instability in stats regression test |
Date: | 2023-11-27 19:01:51 |
Message-ID: | 3893718.1701111711@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:
> I am probably under-caffeinated: What precisely is the potential race? Just
> that the timestamps on some system might not be granular enough?
The problem as I see it is that this test:
SELECT :io_stats_post_reset < :io_stats_pre_reset;
requires an assumption that less I/O has happened since the commanded
reset action than happened before it (extending back to the previous
reset, or cluster start). Since concurrent processes might be doing
I/O, this has a race condition. If we are slow enough about obtaining
:io_stats_post_reset, the test *will* fail eventually. But the shorter
the distance back to the previous reset, the bigger the odds of
observable trouble; thus Michael's concern that adding more reset
tests in future would increase the risk of failure.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-11-27 19:02:59 | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-11-27 18:58:09 | Re: Add recovery to pg_control and remove backup_label |