From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Denis Laxalde <denis.laxalde@dalibo.com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Cc: Gregory Stark (as CFM) <stark.cfm@gmail.com>
Cc: Jelte Fennema <Jelte.Fennema@microsoft.com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 16:11:57 -0400
Message-ID: <584811.1725048717@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGECzQQZi_po92DSgo75vmM-KxG2zMGzo-tt+Z+85w3BgL89ug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <202407221126.vyw5q3h4nyoh@alvherre.pgsql>
<5ea25e4d-1ee2-b9bf-7806-119ffa658826@gmail.com>
<578934.1725045685@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAGECzQQZi_po92DSgo75vmM-KxG2zMGzo-tt+Z+85w3BgL89ug@mail.gmail.com>
Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024, 21:21 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> While we're piling on, has anyone noticed that *non* Windows buildfarm
>> animals are also failing this test pretty frequently?
> Yes. Fixes are here (see the ~10 emails above in the thread for details):
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAGECzQQO8Cn2Rw45xUYmvzXeSSsst7-bcruuzUfMbGQc3ueSdw@mail.gmail...
Hmm. I'm not convinced that 0001 is an actual *fix*, but it should
at least reduce the frequency of occurrence a lot, which'd help.
I don't want to move the test case to where you propose, because
that's basically not sensible. But can't we avoid remote estimates
by just cross-joining ft1 to itself, and not using the tables for
which remote estimate is enabled?
I think 0002 is probably outright wrong, or at least the change to
disable_statement_timeout is. Once we get to that, we don't want
to throw a timeout error any more, even if an interrupt was received
just before it.
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, postgres@jeltef.nl, exclusion@gmail.com, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, noah@leadboat.com, jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com, denis.laxalde@dalibo.com, vignesh21@gmail.com, thomas.munro@gmail.com, stark@mit.edu, stark.cfm@gmail.com, Jelte.Fennema@microsoft.com, daniel@yesql.se, peter@eisentraut.org, andres@anarazel.de, pryzby@telsasoft.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, etsuro.fujita@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel
In-Reply-To: <584811.1725048717@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