Re: A test for replay of regression tests
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A test for replay of regression tests |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+hUKGJm_uex8rDfTcP6ig_nNTySD9DOKq9iyghTtuE0dg+t7g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A test for replay of regression tests (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: A test for replay of regression tests
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 4:03 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > If you want to know whether or not the buildfarm will have problems > due to VACUUM failing to get a cleanup lock randomly, then I suggest > that you use an approach like the one from my patch here: > > https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzkiB-qcsBmWrpzP0nxvrQExoUts1d7TYShg_DrkOHeg4Q@mail.gmail.com > > I recently tried it again myself. With the gizmo in place the tests > fail in exactly the same way you've had problems with on the > buildfarm. On the first try, even. Interesting. IIUC your chaos gizmo shows that particular vacuum test still failing on master, but that wouldn't happen in real life because since 383f2221 it's a temp table. Your gizmo should probably detect temp rels, as your comment says. I was sort of thinking that perhaps if DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING is eventually made to do what its name sounds like it does, we could remove TEMP from that test and it'd still pass with the gizmo...
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: