From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: disabled SSL log_like tests |
Date: | 2025-04-19 11:47:26 |
Message-ID: | ed56081d-ab7c-4dd2-a795-495ef4c15ffd@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-04-18 Fr 7:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> What I think happened here is that a previous backend hadn't exited
>> yet when we start the test, and when its report does come out,
>> connect_fails prematurely stops waiting. (In the above, evidently
>> the child process we want to wait for is 599, but we're fooled by
>> a delayed report for 25401.) So my v1 patch needs work.
>> Maybe we can make the test compare the PIDs in the "forked new client
>> backend" and "client backend exited" log messages. Stay tuned...
> Okay, this version seems more reliable.
>
+See C<log_check(...)>. CAUTION: use of either option requires that
+the server's log_min_messages be at least DEBUG2, and that no other
+client backend is launched concurrently. These requirements allow
+C<connect_fails> to wait to see the postmaster-log report of backend
+exit, without which there is a race condition as to whether we will
+see the expected backend log output.
That seems a little fragile. I can imagine test authors easily
forgetting this. Is it worth sanity checking to make sure
log_min_messages is appropriately set?
cheers
andrew
>
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christoph Berg | 2025-04-19 12:03:29 | Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER |
Previous Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2025-04-19 11:00:00 | Re: Typos in the code and README |