Hi Andrey,
On Sun, Dec 24, 2023 at 1:14 AM Andrey M. Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 22 Dec 2023, at 10:39, Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I try to split the test for transaction timeout, and all passed on my CI [1].
>
>
> I like the refactoring you did in timeout.spec. I thought it is impossible, because permutations would try to
reinitializeFATALed sessions. But, obviously, tests work the way you refactored it.
> However I don't think ignoring test failures on Windows without understanding root cause is a good idea.
> Let's get back to v13 version of tests, understand why it failed, apply your test refactorings afterwards. BTW are
yousure that v14 refactorings are functional equivalent of v13 tests?
>
> To go with this plan I attach slightly modified version of v13 tests in v16 patchset. The only change is timing in
"sleep_there"step. I suspect that failure was induced by more coarse timer granularity on Windows. Tests were giving
only9 milliseconds for a timeout to entirely wipe away backend from pg_stat_activity. This saves testing time, but
mightinduce false positive test flaps. So I've raised wait times to 100ms. This seems too much, but I do not have other
ideashow to ensure tests stability. Maybe 50ms would be enough, I do not know. Isolation runs ~50 seconds now. I'm
temptedto say that 200ms for timeouts worth it.
>
>
> As to 2nd step "Try to enable transaction_timeout during transaction", I think this makes sense. But if we are doing
so,shouldn't we also allow to enable idle_in_transaction timeout in a same manner? Currently we only allow to disable
othertimeouts... Also, if we are already in transaction, shouldn't we also subtract current transaction span from
timeout?
idle_in_transaction_session_timeout is already the behavior Japin suggested,
it is enabled before backend sends *read for query* to client.
> I think making this functionality as another step of the patchset was a good idea.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
--
Regards
Junwang Zhao