Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 11:36:37 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Instability in test/regress/sql/portals.sql
Message-ID: <acNKNdazBhurpavh@paquier.xyz>
References: 
 <CAEze2Wi0hg46bcvLQrjid6Kvbb+NSR1N5OKbDNfHy2J=JutJ=Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BpJzWcIbyWERXero"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEze2Wi0hg46bcvLQrjid6Kvbb+NSR1N5OKbDNfHy2J=JutJ=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/acNKNdazBhurpavh%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--BpJzWcIbyWERXero
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 03:11:36PM +0100, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> Internally at Databricks we've seen rare regression failures in the
> portals.sql test, where the regression diff looks something like the
> one attached in data_attachments_ed2b37649a9393b5.diffs.
>=20
> It seems like this was caused by synchronized seqscans, which caused
> the foo25ns cursor to start its seqscan not at the start of the table,
> but instead with an offset into the table. This changed the output,
> because that relied on the seqscan starting at the first page of the
> table.
>=20
> To stabilize this test, let's add SET synchronize_seqscans =3D off, as at=
tached.

One could be reminded about cbf4177f2ca0, as well, when using a low
number of shared buffers.  My question would be why only this test?
And isn't there some benefit in running this part of the test suite
with the parameter enabled?

Sync seqscans disabled is a pre-8.3 behavior, and I'd be tempted to
suggest that we drop the GUC while making the recovery test 027 use
more shared buffers but we tend to be really conservative with these
tests, so I doubt that this is going to happen.  ;)

Or you could just force that on your end with a custom .conf file?  We
have plenty of configuration that can influence the outcome of the
tests, and it is not obvious why this particular case is worth caring
for when it comes to the upstream core tests.
--
Michael

--BpJzWcIbyWERXero
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=AVx4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--BpJzWcIbyWERXero--