| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 001_rep_changes.pl stalls |
| Date: | 2020-04-14 01:45:16 |
| Message-ID: | 8807.1586828716@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> This seems to have made the following race condition easier to hit:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20200206074552.GB3326097%40rfd.leadboat.com
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/21519.1585272409%40sss.pgh.pa.us
Yeah, I just came to the same guess in the other thread.
> While I don't think that indicates anything wrong with the fix for $SUBJECT,
> creating more buildfarm noise is itself bad. I am inclined to revert the fix
> after a week. Not immediately, in case it uncovers lower-probability bugs.
> I'd then re-commit it after one of those threads fixes the other bug. Would
> anyone like to argue for a revert earlier, later, or not at all?
I don't think you should revert. Those failures are (just) often enough
to be annoying but I do not think that a proper fix is very far away.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2020-04-14 01:50:39 | Re: weird hash plan cost, starting with pg10 |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2020-04-14 01:38:49 | Re: 001_rep_changes.pl stalls |