Message-ID: <28522855-4fcb-4309-8a81-6765a30a24fa@illuminatedcomputing.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 09:14:10 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
References: <CA+renyUApHgSZF9-nd-a0+OPGharLQLO=mDHcY4_qQ0+noCUVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <333d3886-b737-45c3-93f4-594c96bb405d@eisentraut.org>
 <e8e51e74-10d7-410d-a1d1-8ec681d8436a@eisentraut.org>
 <f4056005-0fb7-417a-bcb3-e704f9aeadc3@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <6a2247d9-461d-4b0a-b692-f0f3c0fab27f@eisentraut.org>
 <8f995a4c-64e3-40cd-bfed-06b54a280d36@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <0832f18d-523f-4c15-acb0-338a785150c5@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <5f0c25de-2c13-4fb5-a4df-a1e03c43cd14@illuminatedcomputin! g.com>
 <1b45f81d-4e99-4813-a2c6-72bf5fd80980@eisentraut.org>
 <3611540.1737518430@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <9bb3eea7-820f-4932-92cb-cb564fc44caf@eisentraut.org>
 <bca3e7e6-ac1f-476d-9725-d6aec9100ed0@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <23923ad9-a468-4c2e-8926-e47d15d1eb23@eisentraut.org>
 <e9eca7ab-3624-4054-9c93-bd115049aab8@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <50a1d589-4502-459f-8ce7-4e666684f87e@eisentraut.org>
 <adbb0b45-2ff1-41a8-a119-b332f9d4bdc4@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <88d7e13c-2a14-49ec-a603-7f3a38ac66c4@eisentraut.org>
From: Paul Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <88d7e13c-2a14-49ec-a603-7f3a38ac66c4@eisentraut.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/28522855-4fcb-4309-8a81-6765a30a24fa%40illuminatedcomputing.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 2/12/25 07:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I committed your patch on Sunday, and now it's about 72 hours later.
> 
> I've been observing this on cfbot for some time.  Before the patch, you could go to cfbot at any 
> time and find between 5 and 10 test failures from this problem.  And now there are none.  So I'm 
> calling provisional success on this.

That's great! It's sort of unsatisfying though---and unnerving. I wish when the test failed we knew 
what the oids were for the RESTRICT constraint and the just-dropped NO ACTION constraint. (There's 
no way to get that after the fact, is there?) I probably won't keep putting time into this, but it 
seems like there must still be a hard-to-hit bug in the code for caching query plans. Since the 
behavior disappeared, it is more evidence that that's where the real problem lies.

Yours,

-- 
Paul              ~{:-)
pj@illuminatedcomputing.com