Re: Why is subscription/t/031_column_list.pl failing so much?
От | Alexander Lakhin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why is subscription/t/031_column_list.pl failing so much? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | e3d19e72-2708-21a4-90a0-ae368c875f06@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why is subscription/t/031_column_list.pl failing so much? (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why is subscription/t/031_column_list.pl failing so much?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
06.02.2024 09:48, Amit Kapila wrote: > cool, is it possible to see whether this patch changes the runtime of > this test in any noticeable way? > Yes, unfortunately it does. I've measured duration of 100 tests runs without the patch (with pristine bgwriter and with NO_TEMP_INSTALL): real 6m46,031s real 6m52,406s real 6m51,014s But with the patched test, I've got: real 9m39,872s real 9m40,044s real 9m38,236s (nearly 2 seconds increase per one test run) Under Valgrind, the original test run takes: Files=1, Tests=36, 334 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.00 sys + 163.14 cusr 7.98 csys = 171.14 CPU) But the patched one: Files=1, Tests=36, 368 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.00 sys + 182.16 cusr 8.90 csys = 191.08 CPU) (30 seconds increase) Maybe the more CPU-efficient solution would be disabling bgworker, as was proposed in another discussion of tests instability: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZaTxhjnPygOdosJ4%40ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal Though I think that devising a way to control bgwriter may take more time than we can afford given the current 031 failure rate on the buildfarm (17 failures for the last 3 days). Best regards, Alexander
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: