Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > On 2021-May-24, osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com wrote: >> t >> -step s2detach: <... completed> >> -error in steps s1cancel s2detach: ERROR: canceling statement due to user request >> step s1c: COMMIT; >> +step s2detach: <... completed> >> +error in steps s1c s2detach: ERROR: canceling statement due to user request > Uh, how annoying. If I understand correctly, I agree that this is a > timing issue: sometimes it is fast enough that the cancel is reported > together with its own step, but other times it takes longer so it is > reported with the next command of that session instead, s1c (commit). Yeah, we see such failures in the buildfarm with various isolation tests; some recent examples: https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=gharial&dt=2021-05-23%2019%3A43%3A04 https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=anole&dt=2021-05-08%2006%3A34%3A13 https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=anole&dt=2021-04-29%2009%3A43%3A04 https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=gharial&dt=2021-04-22%2021%3A24%3A02 https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=wrasse&dt=2021-04-21%2010%3A38%3A32 https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=fossa&dt=2021-04-08%2019%3A36%3A06 I remember having tried to rewrite the isolation tester to eliminate the race condition, without success (and I don't seem to have kept my notes, which now I regret). However, the existing hazards seem to hit rarely enough to not be much of a problem. We might need to see if we can rejigger the timing in this test to make it a little more stable. regards, tom lane
pgsql-hackers by date:
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных