From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Reducing logs produced by TAP tests running pg_regress on crash |
Date: | 2022-07-22 01:18:34 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGKoFomAqS8myseS6Yc8D_D2HREp5Gz246pycz690WvfUQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 1:09 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 02:30:13PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > One idea I got to limit the useless output generated is to check the
> > status of the cluster after running the regression test suite as
> > restart_on_crash is disabled by default in Cluster.pm, and avoid any
> > follow-up logic in these tests if the cluster is not running anymore,
> > as of the attached.
>
> So, this is still an open item..
>
> Thomas, any objections about this one? Checking for the status of the
> node after completing pg_regress still sounds like a good idea to me,
> because as restart_after_crash is disabled we would generate a ton of
> logs coming from regression.diffs for nothing. On top of that the
> parallel connections make harder finding which query failed, and the
> logs of the backend provide enough context already on a hard crash.
What if the clue we need to understand why it crashed was in the
regression diffs that we didn't dump?
I wonder if we should move the noise suppression check closer to
pg_regress, so that it works also for the "main" pg_regress run, not
only the one in this new TAP test. As discussed in this thread,
inconclusively:
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-07-22 01:37:37 | Re: Windows now has fdatasync() |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-07-22 01:09:51 | Re: Reducing logs produced by TAP tests running pg_regress on crash |