Re: Autovacuum-induced regression test instability - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Autovacuum-induced regression test instability
Date
Msg-id 20190416055312.GG2673@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Autovacuum-induced regression test instability  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Autovacuum-induced regression test instability
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 01:22:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In connection with the issue discussed at [1], I tried to run
> the core regression tests with extremely aggressive autovacuuming
> (I set autovacuum_naptime = 1s, autovacuum_vacuum_threshold = 5,
> autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay = 0).  I found that the timestamp
> test tends to fail with diffs caused by unstable row order in
> timestamp_tbl.  This is evidently because it does a couple of
> DELETEs before inserting the table's final contents; if autovac
> comes along at the right time then some of those slots can get
> recycled in between insertions.  I'm thinking of committing the
> attached patch to prevent this, since in principle such failures
> could occur even without hacking the autovac settings.  Thoughts?

Aren't extra ORDER BY clauses the usual response to tuple ordering?  I
really think that we should be more aggressive with that.  For table
AM, it can prove to be very useful to run the main regression test
suite with default_table_access_method enforced, and most likely AMs
will not ensure the same tuple ordering as heap.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: extensions are hitting the ceiling
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Accidental setting of XLogReaderState.private_data ?