| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: A failure in 031_recovery_conflict.pl on Debian/s390x |
| Date: | 2023-09-07 02:41:08 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGLwk_bnre1Zd7-nEXLYman7n0eUVHtGbAOAzK1Nj2AEAQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 9:00 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2023-08-12 15:50:24 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Thanks. I realised that it's easy enough to test that theory about
> > cleanup locks by hacking ConditionalLockBufferForCleanup() to return
> > false randomly. Then the test occasionally fails as described. Seems
> > like we'll need to fix that test, but it's not evidence of a server
> > bug, and my signal handler refactoring patch is in the clear. Thanks
> > for testing it!
>
> WRT fixing the test: I think just using VACUUM FREEZE ought to do the job?
> After changing all the VACUUMs to VACUUM FREEZEs, 031_recovery_conflict.pl
> passes even after I make ConditionalLockBufferForCleanup() fail 100%.
I pushed that change (master only for now, like the other change).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2023-09-07 02:59:14 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2023-09-07 02:21:31 | Re: A minor adjustment to get_cheapest_path_for_pathkeys |