Re: A failure in 031_recovery_conflict.pl on Debian/s390x
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A failure in 031_recovery_conflict.pl on Debian/s390x |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20230812210006.ei7tutzwcr5svyt6@awork3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A failure in 031_recovery_conflict.pl on Debian/s390x (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: A failure in 031_recovery_conflict.pl on Debian/s390x
Re: A failure in 031_recovery_conflict.pl on Debian/s390x Re: A failure in 031_recovery_conflict.pl on Debian/s390x Re: A failure in 031_recovery_conflict.pl on Debian/s390x |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2023-08-12 15:50:24 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > Thanks. I realised that it's easy enough to test that theory about > cleanup locks by hacking ConditionalLockBufferForCleanup() to return > false randomly. Then the test occasionally fails as described. Seems > like we'll need to fix that test, but it's not evidence of a server > bug, and my signal handler refactoring patch is in the clear. Thanks > for testing it! WRT fixing the test: I think just using VACUUM FREEZE ought to do the job? After changing all the VACUUMs to VACUUM FREEZEs, 031_recovery_conflict.pl passes even after I make ConditionalLockBufferForCleanup() fail 100%. Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: