From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A failure in prepared_xacts test |
Date: | 2024-04-29 05:25:10 |
Message-ID: | Zi8vNgPIaeUP5-iM@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 01:11:00AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Up to now, we've only worried about whether tests running in parallel
> within a single test suite can interact. It's quite scary to think
> that the meson setup has expanded the possibility of interactions
> to our entire source tree. Maybe that was a bad idea and we should
> fix the meson infrastructure to not do that. I fear that otherwise,
> we'll get bit regularly by very-low-probability bugs of this kind.
I don't disagree with your point, still I'm not sure that this can be
made entirely bullet-proof. Anyway, I think that we should still
improve this test and make it more robust for parallel operations:
installcheck fails equally on HEAD if there is a prepared transaction
on the backend where the tests run, and that seems like a bad idea to
me to rely on cluster-wide scans for what should be a "local" test.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2024-04-29 05:27:13 | RE: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2024-04-29 05:17:39 | Re: documentation structure |