Hi,
On 2022-05-08 13:59:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2022-05-08 11:28:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Per lapwing's latest results [1], this wasn't enough. I'm again thinking
> >> we should pull the whole test from the back branches.
>
> > That failure is different from the earlier failures though. I don't think it's
> > a timing issue in the test like the deadlock check one. I rather suspect it's
> > indicative of further problems in this area.
>
> Yeah, that was my guess too.
>
> > Potentially the known problem
> > with RecoveryConflictInterrupt() running in the signal handler? I think Thomas
> > has a patch for that...
>
> Maybe; or given that it's on v10, it could be telling us about some
> yet-other problem we perhaps solved since then without realizing
> it needed to be back-patched.
>
> > One failure in ~20 runs, on one animal doesn't seem worth disabling the test
> > for.
>
> No one is going to thank us for shipping a known-unstable test case.
IDK, hiding failures indicating bugs isn't really better, at least if it
doesn't look like a bug in the test. But you seem to have a stronger opinion
on this than me, so I'll skip the entire test for now :/
Greetings,
Andres Freund
