Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse
Date: 2022-04-14 17:12:42
Message-ID: CAH2-WzkqC-7ooG99Ai0vPyV1Vj4zx4nqn1i-9ijXiNcrBSrMvQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 10:07 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> It looks like you're changing the elevel convention for these "extra"
> messages with this patch. That might be fine, but don't forget about
> similar ereports() in vacuumparallel.c. I think that the elevel should
> probably remain uniform across all of these messages. Though I don't
> particular care if it's DEBUG2 or DEBUG5.

Also, don't forget to do something here, with the assertion and with
the message:

if (verbose)
{
/*
* Aggressiveness already reported earlier, in dedicated
* VACUUM VERBOSE ereport
*/
Assert(!params->is_wraparound);
msgfmt = _("finished vacuuming \"%s.%s.%s\": index
scans: %d\n");
}
else if (params->is_wraparound)
{

Presumably we will need to report on antiwraparound-ness in the
verbose-debug-elevel-for-autovacuum case (and not allow this assertion
to fail).

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2022-04-14 17:21:36 Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("HaveRegisteredOrActiveSnapshot()", File: "toast_internals.c", Line: 670, PID: 19403)
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2022-04-14 17:07:13 Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse