Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI
Date
Msg-id 1959496.1651555006@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: failures in t/031_recovery_conflict.pl on CI
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2022-05-02 23:44:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I can poke into that tomorrow, but are you sure that that isn't an
>> expectable result?

> It's not expected. But I think I might see what the problem is:
> We wait for the FETCH (and thus the buffer pin to be acquired). But that
> doesn't guarantee that the lock has been acquired. We can't check that with
> pump_until() afaics, because there'll not be any output. But a query_until()
> checking pg_locks should do the trick?

Irritatingly, it doesn't reproduce (at least not easily) in a manual
build on the same box.  So it's almost surely a timing issue, and
your theory here seems plausible.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: strange slow query - lost lot of time somewhere
Next
From: Amul Sul
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal for internal Numeric to Uint64 conversion function.