public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add TAP test for archive_cleanup_command and recovery_end_comman
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:52:10 -0700
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Hi,
On 2022-04-07 13:40:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <[email protected]> writes:
> > Add TAP test for archive_cleanup_command and recovery_end_command
>
> grassquit just showed a non-reproducible failure in this test [1]:
I was just staring at that as well.
> # Postmaster PID for node "standby" is 291160
> ok 1 - check content from archives
> not ok 2 - archive_cleanup_command executed on checkpoint
>
> # Failed test 'archive_cleanup_command executed on checkpoint'
> # at t/002_archiving.pl line 74.
>
> This test is sending a CHECKPOINT command to the standby and
> expecting it to run the archive_cleanup_command, but it looks
> like the standby did not actually run any checkpoint:
>
> 2022-04-07 16:11:33.060 UTC [291806][not initialized][:0] LOG: connection received: host=[local]
> 2022-04-07 16:11:33.078 UTC [291806][client backend][2/15:0] LOG: connection authorized: user=bf database=postgres application_name=002_archiving.pl
> 2022-04-07 16:11:33.084 UTC [291806][client backend][2/16:0] LOG: statement: CHECKPOINT
> 2022-04-07 16:11:33.092 UTC [291806][client backend][:0] LOG: disconnection: session time: 0:00:00.032 user=bf database=postgres host=[local]
>
> I am suspicious that the reason is that ProcessUtility does not
> ask for a forced checkpoint when in recovery:
>
> RequestCheckpoint(CHECKPOINT_IMMEDIATE | CHECKPOINT_WAIT |
> (RecoveryInProgress() ? 0 : CHECKPOINT_FORCE));
>
> The trouble with this theory is that this test has been there for
> nearly six months and this is the first such failure (I scraped the
> buildfarm logs to be sure). Seems like failures should be a lot
> more common than that.
> I wondered if the recent pg_stats changes could have affected this, but I
> don't really see how.
I don't really see either. It's a bit more conceivable that the recovery
prefetching changes could affect the timing sufficiently?
It's also possible that it requires an animal of a certain speed to happen -
we didn't have an -fsanitize=address animal until recently.
I guess we'll have to wait and see what the frequency of the problem is?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
view thread (8+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add TAP test for archive_cleanup_command and recovery_end_comman
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox