From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: brin regression test intermittent failures |
Date: | 2015-05-15 23:51:40 |
Message-ID: | 7135.1431733900@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Just from reading the documentation, couldn't the symptom we're seeing
>> arise from autovacuum having hit the table right before
>> brin_summarize_new_values got called?
> Well, I added a autovacuum_enabled=off to that table recently precisely
> because that was my hypothesis. It didn't work though, so it must be
> sometihng else.
Ah. Not having noticed that, I'd locally added a pg_sleep(60) right
before the brin_summarize_new_values call, and failed to reproduce any
problem. So it's not AV doing something, but it sure smells like
something close to that.
Is there a good reason why we need to exercise brin_summarize_new_values
as such here, rather than just doing a manual VACUUM on the table? And
if there is, do we really need to verify its result value? I mean, even
without whatever sort of race condition we're talking about, that expected
result of "5" looks pretty darn phase-of-the-moon-dependent to me.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-05-16 00:26:38 | Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-05-15 23:07:00 | Re: brin regression test intermittent failures |