From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Subject: Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI
Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 13:59:09 -0400
Message-ID: <3447060.1652032749@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220508173844.cwfcf6w5ruj6wa7v@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20220503182025.wvbebs2ojk6vpi5f@alap3.anarazel.de>
<2174975.1651602203@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20220503191305.htuzje6ldmic7skk@alap3.anarazel.de>
<2808491.1651802860@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20220506030927.6qehktk6bodv4ft3@alap3.anarazel.de>
<2823814.1651808182@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20220506035320.db77mag7nahxzpyy@alap3.anarazel.de>
<2825879.1651809448@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20220506155827.dfnaheq6ufylwrqf@alap3.anarazel.de>
<3254125.1652023714@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20220508173844.cwfcf6w5ruj6wa7v@alap3.anarazel.de>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2022-05-08 11:28:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Per lapwing's latest results [1], this wasn't enough. I'm again thinking
>> we should pull the whole test from the back branches.
> That failure is different from the earlier failures though. I don't think it's
> a timing issue in the test like the deadlock check one. I rather suspect it's
> indicative of further problems in this area.
Yeah, that was my guess too.
> Potentially the known problem
> with RecoveryConflictInterrupt() running in the signal handler? I think Thomas
> has a patch for that...
Maybe; or given that it's on v10, it could be telling us about some
yet-other problem we perhaps solved since then without realizing
it needed to be back-patched.
> One failure in ~20 runs, on one animal doesn't seem worth disabling the test
> for.
No one is going to thank us for shipping a known-unstable test case.
It does nothing to fix the problem; all it will lead to is possible
failures during package builds. I have no idea whether any packagers
use "make check-world" rather than just "make check" while building.
But if they do, even fairly low-probability failures can be problematic.
(I still carry the scars I acquired while working at Red Hat and being
responsible for packaging mysql: at least back then, their test suite
was full of cases that mostly worked fine, except when getting stressed
in Red Hat's build farm. Dealing with a test suite that fails 50% of
the time under load, while trying to push out an urgent security fix,
is NOT a pleasant situation.)
I'm happy to have this test in the stable branches once we have committed
fixes that address all known problems. Until then, it will just be
a nuisance for anyone who is not a developer working on those problems.
regards, tom lane
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: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, robertmhaas@gmail.com, thomas.munro@gmail.com, andrew@dunslane.net
Subject: Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI
In-Reply-To: <3447060.1652032749@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox