Re: Recent "could not register background process" buildfarm failures - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Gustafsson
Subject Re: Recent "could not register background process" buildfarm failures
Date
Msg-id 99E27A7C-5BC8-4DC7-B6BB-D35B0679C884@yesql.se
Whole thread
List pgsql-hackers
> On 18 Aug 2026, at 19:44, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
>
> On 2026-Aug-18, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> # +ERROR:  could not register background process
>> # +HINT:  You may need to increase "max_worker_processes".
>>
>> test_shm_mq itself hasn't changed meaningfully in ages,
>> so it seems like some recent change somewhere else has increased
>> the probability of not being able to get a worker process.
>> Maybe autovacuum is eating too many workers?  Any thoughts?
>
> Hm, autovacuum does not use workers from the bgworker pool AFAIK.
> Repack concurrently does.  However, I don't think we use repack
> concurrently anywhere in the standard tests; we only run it in the
> test_decoding and injection_point tests, which have separate instances.

Online checksums also use bgworkers but it too should not be running here, and
looking at it I didn't see evidence of it interfering.  I'll have another look
in the morning with fresh eyes.

--
Daniel Gustafsson




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: gistkillitems can LP_DEAD-mark the wrong tuples on a rescan
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: [Patch] Omit virtual generated columns from test_decoding output