Re: Test 026_overwrite_contrecord fails on very slow machines (under Valgrind)

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: Test 026_overwrite_contrecord fails on very slow machines (under Valgrind)
Date: 2023-10-12 23:30:02
Message-ID: ZSiBeipyrir7Uhz8@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 02:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> So to fail on the test, skink should perform at least twice slower than
> usual, and may be it's an extraordinary condition indeed, but on the other
> hand, may be increase checkpoint_timeout as already done in several tests
> (015_promotion_pages, 038_save_logical_slots_shutdown, 039_end_of_wal, ...).
>
> [1] https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=skink&dt=2023-10-10%2017%3A10%3A11
> [2] https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=skink&dt=2022-11-07%2020%3A27%3A11

Thanks for the investigation. Increasing the checkpoint timeout is
not a perfect science but at least it would work until a machine is
able to be slower than the current limit reached, so I would be OK
with your suggestion and raise the bar a bit more to prevent the race
created by these extra checkpoints triggered because of the time.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2023-10-12 23:31:20 Re: LLVM 16 (opaque pointers)
Previous Message David Rowley 2023-10-12 23:22:54 Re: Making aggregate deserialization (and WAL receive) functions slightly faster