From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Subject: | Re: Refactoring postmaster's code to cleanup after child exit |
Date: | 2024-12-10 11:39:39 |
Message-ID: | f6a156cf-9a48-4b15-84f6-f33f27b3c2fe@vondra.me |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/10/24 11:00, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 09/12/2024 22:55, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Not sure how to fix this. A small sleep in the test would work, but in
>> principle there's no delay that's guaranteed to be enough. A more
>> robust solution would be to run a "select count(*) from
>> pg_stat_activity" and wait until the number of connections are what's
>> expected. I'll try that and see how complicated that gets..
>
> Checking pg_stat_activity doesn't help, because the backend doesn't
> register itself in pg_stat_activity until later. A connection that's
> rejected due to connection limits never shows up in pg_stat_activity.
>
> Some options:
>
> 0. Do nothing
>
> 1. Add a small sleep to the test
>
I'd just add a short sleep. Yeah, sleeps are not great, but everything
else seems like a lot of effort just to make this one test pass under
valgrind, and I don't think it's worth it.
Can we make the sleep conditional on valgrind, so that regular builds
are not affected? I guess regular builds could fail too, but I don't
think we've seen such failures until now.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2024-12-10 11:44:52 | Re: Add ExprState hashing for GROUP BY and hashed SubPlans |
Previous Message | Jakub Wartak | 2024-12-10 11:36:33 | Re: FileFallocate misbehaving on XFS |