| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Explanation for intermittent buildfarm pg_upgradecheck failures |
| Date: | 2015-08-03 01:56:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRQUd8Nh+KEimB+Oqx25zYamJuVHVwrjhZ3Vgk_8ax+iw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I haven't looked to find out why the unlinks happen in this order, but on
> a heavily loaded machine, it's certainly possible that the process would
> lose the CPU after unlink("postmaster.pid"), and then a new postmaster
> could get far enough to see the socket lock file still there. So that
> would account for low-probability failures in the pg_upgradecheck test,
> which is exactly what we've been seeing.
Oh... This may explain the different failures seen with TAP tests on
hamster, and axolotl with pg_upgrade as well. It is rather easy to get
them heavily loaded.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-08-03 02:15:58 | Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Kouhei Kaigai | 2015-08-03 01:32:10 | Re: nodes/*funcs.c inconsistencies |