Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel
От | Jelte Fennema-Nio |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAGECzQSmXBwHeTSHxVMtTo8JAexq0z8_rpUuAkHwMm2VbRvseg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 19:28, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2024-Mar-12, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Hmm, buildfarm member kestrel (which uses > > -fsanitize=undefined,alignment) failed: > > > > # Running: libpq_pipeline -r 700 cancel port=49975 host=/tmp/dFh46H7YGc > > dbname='postgres' > > test cancellations... > > libpq_pipeline:260: query did not fail when it was expected > > Hm, I tried using the same compile flags, couldn't reproduce. Okay, it passed now it seems so I guess this test is flaky somehow. The error message and the timing difference between failed and succeeded buildfarm run clearly indicates that the pg_sleep ran its 180 seconds to completion (so cancel was never processed for some reason). **failed case** 282/285 postgresql:libpq_pipeline / libpq_pipeline/001_libpq_pipeline ERROR 191.56s exit status 1 **succeeded case** 252/285 postgresql:libpq_pipeline / libpq_pipeline/001_libpq_pipeline OK 10.01s 21 subtests passed I don't see any obvious reason for how this test can be flaky, but I'll think a bit more about it tomorrow.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: