Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add amcheck extension to contrib. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add amcheck extension to contrib.
Date
Msg-id 30354.1489434301@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add amcheck extension to contrib.  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Add amcheck extension to contrib.

axolotl just failed on this:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=axolotl&dt=2017-03-13%2017%3A49%3A24

***************
*** 78,86 ****  -- make sure we don't have any leftover locks SELECT * FROM pg_locks WHERE relation IN
('bttest_a_idx'::regclass,'bttest_b_idx'::regclass); 
!  locktype | database | relation | page | tuple | virtualxid | transactionid | classid | objid | objsubid |
virtualtransaction| pid | mode | granted | fastpath  
!
----------+----------+----------+------+-------+------------+---------------+---------+-------+----------+--------------------+-----+------+---------+----------
! (0 rows)  COMMIT; -- cleanup
--- 78,87 ----  -- make sure we don't have any leftover locks SELECT * FROM pg_locks WHERE relation IN
('bttest_a_idx'::regclass,'bttest_b_idx'::regclass); 
!  locktype | database | relation | page | tuple | virtualxid | transactionid | classid | objid | objsubid |
virtualtransaction|  pid  |      mode       | granted | fastpath  
!
----------+----------+----------+------+-------+------------+---------------+---------+-------+----------+--------------------+-------+-----------------+---------+----------
!  relation |    57562 |    57573 |      |       |            |               |         |       |          | 4/29
       | 20342 | AccessShareLock | t       | t 
! (1 row)  COMMIT; -- cleanup


I could be wrong, but the most obvious explanation for this failure is
that autovacuum had a lock on the table or index when we looked.
Even if that isn't why axolotl failed in this particular case, I think
it's dead certain that we will see such failures from time to time
if this test script isn't tightened up.  IIUC what the test is trying
to look for, I think adding "AND pid = pg_backend_pid()" to this query
would be an appropriate fix.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] delta relations in AFTER triggers
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag