From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
        Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
        Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>,
        Denis Laxalde <denis.laxalde@dalibo.com>,
        vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>,
 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
        Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>,
        "Gregory Stark (as CFM)" <stark.cfm@gmail.com>,
        Jelte Fennema <Jelte.Fennema@microsoft.com>,
        Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
        Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
        Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>
	message dated "Fri, 30 Aug 2024 21:49:44 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <584810.1725048717.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 16:11:57 -0400
Message-ID: <584811.1725048717@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/584811.1725048717%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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-bc=
ruuzUfMbGQc3ueSdw@mail.gmail.com

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