| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Denis Laxalde <denis(dot)laxalde(at)dalibo(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" <stark(dot)cfm(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema <Jelte(dot)Fennema(at)microsoft(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel |
| Date: | 2024-08-30 20:11:57 |
| Message-ID: | 584811.1725048717@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024, 21:21 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> While we're piling on, has anyone noticed that *non* Windows buildfarm
>> animals are also failing this test pretty frequently?
> Yes. Fixes are here (see the ~10 emails above in the thread for details):
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAGECzQQO8Cn2Rw45xUYmvzXeSSsst7-bcruuzUfMbGQc3ueSdw@mail.gmail.com
Hmm. I'm not convinced that 0001 is an actual *fix*, but it should
at least reduce the frequency of occurrence a lot, which'd help.
I don't want to move the test case to where you propose, because
that's basically not sensible. But can't we avoid remote estimates
by just cross-joining ft1 to itself, and not using the tables for
which remote estimate is enabled?
I think 0002 is probably outright wrong, or at least the change to
disable_statement_timeout is. Once we get to that, we don't want
to throw a timeout error any more, even if an interrupt was received
just before it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-08-30 20:12:20 | Re: pl/pgperl Patch for adding $_FN detail just like triggers have for $_TD |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-08-30 20:10:32 | Re: [PATCH] pg_stat_activity: make slow/hanging authentication more visible |