Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([2a02:16a8:dc51::56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fZ2P6-0005dJ-IX for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 23:02:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fZ2P4-0002sf-Ez for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 23:02:10 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fZ2P4-0002sY-8m for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 23:02:10 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1fZ2P1-0001wU-Jp for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 23:02:09 +0000 Received: from pro.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w5TN24pn005577; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:02:04 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Alvaro Herrera cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, 2q-andrew@alvin.alvh.no-ip.org Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix "base" snapshot handling in logical decoding In-reply-to: <20180629225055.cy3e4ecayibwr5rd@alvherre.pgsql> References: <20180629225055.cy3e4ecayibwr5rd@alvherre.pgsql> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera message dated "Fri, 29 Jun 2018 18:50:55 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <27275.1530313324.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:02:04 -0400 Message-ID: <27276.1530313324@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Alvaro Herrera writes: >> On 2018-Jun-28, Tom Lane wrote: >>> According to buildfarm member friarbird, and as confirmed here, >>> the contrib/test_decoding/specs/oldest_xmin.spec test added by this >>> commit fails under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS. > I suppose 60 seconds (isolationtester's default timeout) is just not > enough time for those machines. We could increase it to 180 seconds and > see if that's enough to make them pass ... What I want to know is why this test is doing a database-wide VACUUM FULL in the first place. If that isn't profligate wastage of testing cycles, why not? regards, tom lane