Re: One-off failure in "cluster" test - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: One-off failure in "cluster" test
Date
Msg-id 1036193.1597627240@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to One-off failure in "cluster" test  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: One-off failure in "cluster" test  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> I wonder what caused this[1] one-off failure to see tuples in clustered order:
> ...
> I guess a synchronised scan could cause that, but I wouldn't expect one here.

Looking at its configuration, chipmunk uses

 'extra_config' => {
 ...
                                                      'shared_buffers = 10MB',

which I think means that clstr_4 would be large enough to trigger a
syncscan.  Ordinarily that's not a problem since no other session would
be touching clstr_4 ... but I wonder whether (a) autovacuum had decided
to look at clstr_4 and (b) syncscan can trigger on vacuum-driven scans.
(a) would explain the non-reproducibility.

I kinda think that (b), if true, is a bad idea and should be suppressed.
autovacuum would typically fail to keep up with other syncscans thanks
to vacuum delay settings, so letting it participate seems unhelpful.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: One-off failure in "cluster" test
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: One-off failure in "cluster" test