From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: xid_wraparound tests intermittent failure. |
Date: | 2024-07-30 21:57:02 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoBgnnn_BX3L3WFS+1aZtwc4D0Es+fRZ7eg5XF3ASJkP5w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 3:29 AM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
> On 2024-07-29 Mo 5:25 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I've attached the patch. Could you please test if the patch fixes the
> instability you observed?
>
> Since we turn off autovacuum on all three tests and we wait for
> autovacuum to complete processing databases, these tests potentially
> have a similar (but lower) risk. So I modified these tests to turn it
> on so we can ensure the autovacuum runs periodically.
>
>
> I assume you actually meant to remove the "autovacuum = off" in 003_wraparound.pl. With that change in your patch I retried my test, but on iteration 100 out of 100 it failed on test 002_limits.pl.
>
> I think we need to remove the "autovacuum = off' also in 002_limits.pl
> as it waits for autovacuum to process both template0 and template1
> databases. Just to be clear, the failure happened even without
> "autovacuum = off"?
>
> The attached patch, a slight modification of yours, removes "autovacuum
> = off" for all three tests, and given that a set of 200 runs was clean
> for me.
>
> Oh I missed that I left "autovacuum = off' for some reason in 002
> test. Thank you for attaching the patch, it looks good to me.
>
>
> Thanks, pushed.
Thanks!
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2024-07-30 22:51:25 | Re: can we mark upper/lower/textlike functions leakproof? |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2024-07-30 21:56:25 | Re: long-standing data loss bug in initial sync of logical replication |