Re: We're leaking predicate locks in HEAD - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: We're leaking predicate locks in HEAD
Date
Msg-id 2960.1557258923@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: We're leaking predicate locks in HEAD  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 5/7/19 1:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> After running the core regression tests with installcheck-parallel,
>> the pg_locks view sometimes shows me apparently-orphaned SIReadLock
>> entries.  They accumulate over repeated test runs.  

> Should we have a test for that run at/near the end of the regression
> tests? The buildfarm will actually do multiple runs like this if set up
> to do parallel checks and test multiple locales.

No, I'm not excited about that idea; I think it'd have all the same
fragility as the late lamented "REINDEX pg_class" test.  A given test
script has no business assuming that other test scripts aren't
legitimately taking out predicate locks, nor assuming that prior test
scripts are fully cleaned up when it runs.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: We're leaking predicate locks in HEAD
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Detrimental performance impact of ringbuffers onperformance