Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20220508173844.cwfcf6w5ruj6wa7v@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2022-05-08 11:28:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2022-05-05 23:57:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Are you sure there's just one test that's failing? I haven't checked > >> the buildfarm history close enough to be sure of that. But if it's > >> true, disabling just that one would be fine (again, as a stopgap > >> measure). > > > I looked through all the failures I found and it's two kinds of failures, both > > related to the deadlock test. So I'm thinking of skipping just that test as in > > the attached. > > Per lapwing's latest results [1], this wasn't enough. I'm again thinking > we should pull the whole test from the back branches. That failure is different from the earlier failures though. I don't think it's a timing issue in the test like the deadlock check one. I rather suspect it's indicative of further problems in this area. Potentially the known problem with RecoveryConflictInterrupt() running in the signal handler? I think Thomas has a patch for that... One failure in ~20 runs, on one animal doesn't seem worth disabling the test for. Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: