From: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
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 05:30:00 |
Message-ID: | cbf0156f-5aa1-91db-5802-82435dda03e6@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Tom and Michael,
29.04.2024 08:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
>> If you grep the source tree, you'd notice that a prepared transaction
>> named gxid only exists in the 2PC tests of ECPG, in
>> src/interfaces/ecpg/test/sql/twophase.pgc. So the origin of the
>> failure comes from a race condition due to test parallelization,
>> because the scan of pg_prepared_xacts affects all databases with
>> installcheck, and in your case it means that the scan of
>> pg_prepared_xacts was running in parallel of the ECPG tests with an
>> installcheck.
> 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.
Yes, I'm afraid of the same. For example, the test failure [1] is of that
ilk, I guess.
[1] https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=rorqual&dt=2024-04-17%2016%3A33%3A23
Best regards,
Alexander
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-29 05:32:40 | Re: A failure in prepared_xacts test |
Previous Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2024-04-29 05:27:13 | RE: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |