On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 11:13 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 12:55 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
> > > The short of it is that the cached-plan-inval test in the
> > > delay_execution suite can never be made to work under
> > > CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS. The test assumes that locks on partitions for a
> > > reused generic plan are not taken until InitPlan(). However, under
> > > CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS, generic plans are never reused, so the test's
> > > assumption never holds.
> >
> > Ugh.
> >
> > > I see two possible ways to address this:
> >
> > > 1. Find a way to disable the cached-plan-inval test in
> > > CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS builds. However, I haven't found any other test
> > > that does this.
> >
> > > 2. Remove the test altogether, though that might be too drastic.
> >
> > Well, you could force matters with "set debug_discard_caches = 0"
> > within the test, but I think that's just a band-aid that would
> > not make the test fully stable. The point of CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS
> > is to model random arrival of cache flush events, which is *always*
> > a possibility due to background activity (autovacuum for instance).
> >
> > We do have a couple of other regression tests that rely on
> > "set debug_discard_caches = 0", and I've not seen many buildfarm
> > failures tracing to that, but I don't trust it a whole lot.
> >
> > How badly do you want to keep this test case? It seems fairly
> > rickety to me, even without this particular concern.
>
> Hmm, yeah, I have to admit that even if we address this specific
> issue, the risk of this test failing again outweighs the likelihood of
> it catching a real breakage in the deferred lock mechanism.
>
> I'll remove the test for now.
Done. I'll try to think of a more robust testing approach for this,
but I’m not very optimistic :-(.
--
Thanks, Amit Langote
