From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 001_rep_changes.pl stalls
In-reply-to: <20200414013849.GA886648@rfd.leadboat.com>
References: <20200406063649.GA3738151@rfd.leadboat.com>
 <20200414013849.GA886648@rfd.leadboat.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
	message dated "Mon, 13 Apr 2020 18:38:49 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <8806.1586828716.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 21:45:16 -0400
Message-ID: <8807.1586828716@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> This seems to have made the following race condition easier to hit:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20200206074552.GB3326097%40rf=
d.leadboat.com
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/21519.1585272409%40sss.pgh.pa=
.us

Yeah, I just came to the same guess in the other thread.

> While I don't think that indicates anything wrong with the fix for $SUBJ=
ECT,
> creating more buildfarm noise is itself bad.  I am inclined to revert th=
e fix
> after a week.  Not immediately, in case it uncovers lower-probability bu=
gs.
> I'd then re-commit it after one of those threads fixes the other bug.  W=
ould
> anyone like to argue for a revert earlier, later, or not at all?

I don't think you should revert.  Those failures are (just) often enough
to be annoying but I do not think that a proper fix is very far away.

			regards, tom lane