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 1oHpgm-0000eX-DM for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2022 16:51:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oHpgk-0006rB-A9 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2022 16:51:42 +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 1oHpgk-0006r2-0y for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2022 16:51:42 +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 1oHpgh-0003Ew-Ls for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sat, 30 Jul 2022 16:51:40 +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 26UGpZhJ509376; Sat, 30 Jul 2022 12:51:35 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Alvaro Herrera cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi , thomas.munro@gmail.com, boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: standby recovery fails (tablespace related) (tentative patch and discussion) In-reply-to: <349302.1659191875@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <20220729105903.xuiw23kpcdphcvel@alvherre.pgsql> <349302.1659191875@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Sat, 30 Jul 2022 10:37:55 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <509374.1659199895.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2022 12:51:35 -0400 Message-ID: <509375.1659199895@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk I wrote: > Looks like conchuela is still intermittently unhappy. BTW, quite aside from stability, is it really necessary for this test to be so freakin' slow? florican for instance reports [12:43:38] t/025_stuck_on_old_timeline.pl ....... ok 49010 ms ( 0.00 us= r 0.00 sys + 3.64 cusr 2.49 csys =3D 6.13 CPU) [12:44:12] t/026_overwrite_contrecord.pl ........ ok 34751 ms ( 0.01 us= r 0.00 sys + 3.14 cusr 1.76 csys =3D 4.91 CPU) [12:49:00] t/027_stream_regress.pl .............. ok 287278 ms ( 0.00 us= r 0.00 sys + 9.66 cusr 6.95 csys =3D 16.60 CPU) [12:50:04] t/028_pitr_timelines.pl .............. ok 64543 ms ( 0.00 us= r 0.00 sys + 3.59 cusr 3.20 csys =3D 6.78 CPU) [12:50:17] t/029_stats_restart.pl ............... ok 12505 ms ( 0.02 us= r 0.00 sys + 3.16 cusr 1.40 csys =3D 4.57 CPU) [12:50:51] t/030_stats_cleanup_replica.pl ....... ok 33933 ms ( 0.01 us= r 0.01 sys + 3.55 cusr 2.46 csys =3D 6.03 CPU) [12:51:25] t/031_recovery_conflict.pl ........... ok 34249 ms ( 0.00 us= r 0.00 sys + 3.37 cusr 2.20 csys =3D 5.57 CPU) [12:52:09] t/032_relfilenode_reuse.pl ........... ok 44274 ms ( 0.01 us= r 0.00 sys + 3.21 cusr 2.05 csys =3D 5.27 CPU) [12:54:07] t/033_replay_tsp_drops.pl ............ ok 117840 ms ( 0.01 us= r 0.00 sys + 8.72 cusr 5.41 csys =3D 14.14 CPU) 027 is so bloated because it runs the core regression tests YA time, which I'm not very happy about either; but that's no excuse for every new test to contribute an additional couple of minutes. regards, tom lane