Feedback-ID: ie0a040ee:Fastmail
Message-ID: <88d7e13c-2a14-49ec-a603-7f3a38ac66c4@eisentraut.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 16:23:36 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
To: Paul Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
References: <CA+renyUApHgSZF9-nd-a0+OPGharLQLO=mDHcY4_qQ0+noCUVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <333d3886-b737-45c3-93f4-594c96bb405d@eisentraut.org>
 <e8e51e74-10d7-410d-a1d1-8ec681d8436a@eisentraut.org>
 <f4056005-0fb7-417a-bcb3-e704f9aeadc3@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <6a2247d9-461d-4b0a-b692-f0f3c0fab27f@eisentraut.org>
 <8f995a4c-64e3-40cd-bfed-06b54a280d36@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <0832f18d-523f-4c15-acb0-338a785150c5@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <5f0c25de-2c13-4fb5-a4df-a1e03c43cd14@illuminatedcomputin! g.com>
 <1b45f81d-4e99-4813-a2c6-72bf5fd80980@eisentraut.org>
 <3611540.1737518430@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <9bb3eea7-820f-4932-92cb-cb564fc44caf@eisentraut.org>
 <bca3e7e6-ac1f-476d-9725-d6aec9100ed0@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <23923ad9-a468-4c2e-8926-e47d15d1eb23@eisentraut.org>
 <e9eca7ab-3624-4054-9c93-bd115049aab8@illuminatedcomputing.com>
 <50a1d589-4502-459f-8ce7-4e666684f87e@eisentraut.org>
 <adbb0b45-2ff1-41a8-a119-b332f9d4bdc4@illuminatedcomputing.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
In-Reply-To: <adbb0b45-2ff1-41a8-a119-b332f9d4bdc4@illuminatedcomputing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/88d7e13c-2a14-49ec-a603-7f3a38ac66c4%40eisentraut.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 05.02.25 19:31, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
> On 2/5/25 05:37, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 29.01.25 07:34, Paul Jungwirth wrote:
>>> Is it possible to commit an RI_PLAN_NO_ACTION addition and see if 
>>> that makes the buildfarm failures go away? Here is a proposed patch 
>>> for that (v48.1). I would understand if this is too questionable a 
>>> practice---but it would be nice to get sufficient test exposure to 
>>> see if it makes a difference. Since I still haven't reproduced this 
>>> locally (despite running continuously for almost a week), it's not an 
>>> experiment I can do myself. If it *does* make the failures go away, 
>>> then it suggests there is still some latent problem somewhere.
>>
>> I'm tempted to give this a try.  But the cfbot is currently in a bit 
>> of a mess, so I'll wait until that is clean again so that we can have 
>> a usable baseline to work against.
> 
> Okay, thanks! I've been spending some more time on this, but I haven't 
> made much progress.

I committed your patch on Sunday, and now it's about 72 hours later.

I've been observing this on cfbot for some time.  Before the patch, you 
could go to cfbot at any time and find between 5 and 10 test failures 
from this problem.  And now there are none.  So I'm calling provisional 
success on this.