On 2024-07-26 Fr 1:46 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 6:52 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 2024-07-25 Th 3:40 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 11:06 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 10:56 AM Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 2024-07-23 Tu 6:59 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> See <https://bitbucket.org/adunstan/rotfang-fdw/downloads/xid-wraparound-result.tar.bz2>
>>
>>
>> The failure logs are from a run where both tests 1 and 2 failed.
>>
>> Thank you for sharing the logs.
>>
>> I think that the problem seems to match what Alexander Lakhin
>> mentioned[1]. Probably we can fix such a race condition somehow but
>> I'm not sure it's worth it as setting autovacuum = off and
>> autovacuum_max_workers = 1 (or a low number) is an extremely rare
>> case. I think it would be better to stabilize these tests. One idea is
>> to turn the autovacuum GUC parameter on while setting
>> autovacuum_enabled = off for each table. That way, we can ensure that
>> autovacuum workers are launched. And I think it seems to align real
>> use cases.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/02373ec3-50c6-df5a-0d65-5b9b1c0c86d6%40gmail.com
>>
>>
>> OK, do you want to propose a patch?
>>
>> Yes, I'll prepare and share it soon.
>>
>> I've attached the patch. Could you please test if the patch fixes the
>> instability you observed?
>>
>> Since we turn off autovacuum on all three tests and we wait for
>> autovacuum to complete processing databases, these tests potentially
>> have a similar (but lower) risk. So I modified these tests to turn it
>> on so we can ensure the autovacuum runs periodically.
>>
>>
>> I assume you actually meant to remove the "autovacuum = off" in 003_wraparound.pl. With that change in your patch I
retriedmy test, but on iteration 100 out of 100 it failed on test 002_limits.pl.
>>
> I think we need to remove the "autovacuum = off' also in 002_limits.pl
> as it waits for autovacuum to process both template0 and template1
> databases. Just to be clear, the failure happened even without
> "autovacuum = off"?
>
The attached patch, a slight modification of yours, removes "autovacuum
= off" for all three tests, and given that a set of 200 runs was clean
for me.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
