From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
        Jakub Wartak <jakub.wartak@enterprisedb.com>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: scalability bottlenecks with (many) partitions (and more)
In-reply-to: <qdvrgej743lcddjnb4lzyakt3f5bs2oz34r274wbmgc2g4474q@utqqrqiih65h>
References: <7c1eeafb-2375-4ff6-8469-0640d52d44ed@vondra.me> <ffiwtzc6vedo6wb4gbwelon5nefqg675t5c7an2ta7pcz646cg@qwmkdb3l4ett> <bfca1010-e5f1-4e36-a461-61b6aad60c47@vondra.me> <5xahykogf2sg3ofdqk2li7xx3t2vh23m42jnvfwxoi5fhh7iya@girlhoxdxjzc> <486baeb2-2adc-48d2-ba9d-13c4ae43301c@vondra.me> <vgtms7b5egxdypmknxpobocqton3puhprk3ahhk45rcx4uyl33@6uetxejsc75r> <733e72fa-5fc2-48fc-ab1f-1d8f1ab387c3@vondra.me> <d5499660-1541-4749-aff4-6be88be76d99@vondra.me> <nubyc3twqd7mtuyc2rbbt2yazjzbat6mlpfgxtb2ppv2egci3g@uvptf7xmh46m> <193453.1741123834@sss.pgh.pa.us> <qdvrgej743lcddjnb4lzyakt3f5bs2oz34r274wbmgc2g4474q@utqqrqiih65h>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Tue, 04 Mar 2025 16:46:51 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <197166.1741125678.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 17:01:18 -0500
Message-ID: <197167.1741125678@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/197167.1741125678%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2025-03-04 16:30:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I've been poking at that.  It's not at all clear why the
>> animal is trying to run src/test/modules/ldap_password_func
>> now when it didn't before.

> It did do so before as well, afaict:
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=3Dsifaka&d=
t=3D2025-03-04%2015%3A01%3A42&stg=3Dmodule-ldap_password_func-check

> It seems to me that the difference is that now checkprep is run, whereas
> previously it wasn't.

Maybe, but still I don't see any changes in the BF client that'd
explain it.  The animal's configuration hasn't changed either;
the only non-comment diff in its buildfarm.conf is

@@ -374,7 +376,7 @@
 =

        base_port =3D> 5678,
 =

-       modules =3D> [qw(TestUpgrade TestDecoding)],
+       modules =3D> [qw(TestUpgrade)],
 =

        # settings used by run_branches.pl
        global =3D> {

which I changed to follow the lead of build-farm.conf.sample.
But surely that wouldn't affect this!?

			regards, tom lane