Re: Random pg_upgrade test failure on drongo
От | Alexander Lakhin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Random pg_upgrade test failure on drongo |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5b2d0f4b-9e79-cd13-b932-b1a9162b7205@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Random pg_upgrade test failure on drongo (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Random pg_upgrade test failure on drongo
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Amit, 09.01.2024 13:08, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> As to checkpoint_timeout, personally I would not increase it, because it >> seems unbelievable to me that pg_restore (with the cluster containing only >> two empty databases) can run for longer than 5 minutes. I'd rather >> investigate such situation separately, in case we encounter it, but maybe >> it's only me. >> > I feel it is okay to set a higher value of checkpoint_timeout due to > the same reason though the probability is less. I feel here it is > important to explain in the comments why we are using these settings > in the new test. I have thought of something like: "During the > upgrade, bgwriter or checkpointer could hold the file handle for some > removed file. Now, during restore when we try to create the file with > the same name, it errors out. This behavior is specific to only some > specific Windows versions and the probability of seeing this behavior > is higher in this test because we use wal_level as logical via > allows_streaming => 'logical' which in turn sets shared_buffers as > 1MB." > > Thoughts? I would describe that behavior as "During upgrade, when pg_restore performs CREATE DATABASE, bgwriter or checkpointer may flush buffers and hold a file handle for pg_largeobject, so later TRUNCATE pg_largeobject command will fail if OS (such as older Windows versions) doesn't remove an unlinked file completely till it's open. ..." Best regards, Alexander
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: