Re: Going for "all green" buildfarm results

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
>>
>>
>>> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:44:44AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The path of least resistance might just be to not run these tests in
>>>>> parallel. The chance of this issue causing problems in the real world
>>>>> seems small.
>>>>>
>>>> It doesn't seem that unusual to want to rename an index on a running
>>>> system, and it certainly doesn't seem like the kind of operation that
>>>> should pose a problem. So at the very least, we'd need a big fat
>>>> warning
>>>> in the docs about how renaming an index could cause other queries in
>>>> the
>>>> system to fail, and the error message needs to be improved.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> it is my understanding that Tom is already tackling the underlying issue
>>> on a much more general base ...
>>>
>>
>> Done in HEAD, but we might still wish to think about changing the
>> regression tests in the back branches, else we'll probably continue to
>> see this failure once in a while ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> How sure are we that this is the cause of the problem? The feeling I got
> was "this is a good guess". If so, do we want to prevent ourselves
> getting any further clues in case we're wrong? It's also an interesting
> case of a (low likelihood) bug which is not fixable on any stable branch.

well I have a lot of trust into tom - though the main issue is that this
issue seems to be difficult hard to trigger.
afaik only one box (lionfish) ever managed to hit it and even there only
2 times out of several hundred builds - I don't suppose we can come up
with a testcase that might be more reliably showing that issue ?

Stefan