Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n8VQQ-0000Xb-2n for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 22:52:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n8VQO-0002oM-2D for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 22:52:00 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n8VQN-0002nm-JK for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 22:51:59 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n8VQL-00035E-3a for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 22:51:58 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 20EMpq0x3430790; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:51:52 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Thomas Munro cc: Andres Freund , Alexander Lakhin , Andrew Dunstan , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: Why is src/test/modules/committs/t/002_standby.pl flaky? In-reply-to: References: <5d507424-13ce-d19f-2f5d-ab4c6a987316@gmail.com> <1fe6b898-1722-d190-03c0-bf4c4884a748@gmail.com> <2763901.1641932210@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20220114202848.x2ctpjgyreqx22dv@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Munro message dated "Sat, 15 Jan 2022 10:59:00 +1300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3430788.1642200712.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:51:52 -0500 Message-ID: <3430789.1642200712@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Thomas Munro writes: > (That patch is assuming that we're looking for something simple to > back-patch, in the event that we decide not to just revert the > graceful shutdown patch from back branches. Reverting might be a > better idea for now, and then we could fix all this stuff going > forward.) FWIW, I'm just fine with reverting, particularly in the back branches. It seems clear that this dank corner of Windows contains even more creepy-crawlies than we thought. regards, tom lane