Re: Add a new BGWORKER_BYPASS_ROLELOGINCHECK flag
| От | Michael Paquier |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Add a new BGWORKER_BYPASS_ROLELOGINCHECK flag |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | ZSyebsiub88pyJJO@paquier.xyz обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Add a new BGWORKER_BYPASS_ROLELOGINCHECK flag ("Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Add a new BGWORKER_BYPASS_ROLELOGINCHECK flag
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 07:42:28AM +0200, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote: > On 10/12/23 2:26 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> I have tweaked a few comments, and applied that. Thanks. > > Oh and you also closed the CF entry, thanks! The buildfarm has provided some feedback, and the new tests have been unstable on mamba: https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=mamba&dt=2023-10-15%2005%3A04%3A21 In more details: # poll_query_until timed out executing this query: # SELECT datname, usename, wait_event FROM pg_stat_activity # WHERE backend_type = 'worker_spi dynamic' AND # pid = ; # expecting this output: # mydb|nologrole|WorkerSpiMain # last actual query output: # # with stderr: # ERROR: syntax error at or near ";" # LINE 3: pid = ; So this looks like a hard failure in starting the worker that should bypass the role login check. The logs don't offer much information, but I think I know what's going on here: at this stage of the tests, the number of workers created is 7, very close to the limit of max_worker_processes, at 8 by default. So one parallel worker spawned by any of the other bgworkers would be enough to prevent the last one to start, and mamba has been slow enough in the startup of the static workers to show that this could be possible. I think that we should just bump up max_worker_processes, like in the attached. -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: