Re: A failure in 031_recovery_conflict.pl on Debian/s390x - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: A failure in 031_recovery_conflict.pl on Debian/s390x
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGLwk_bnre1Zd7-nEXLYman7n0eUVHtGbAOAzK1Nj2AEAQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: A failure in 031_recovery_conflict.pl on Debian/s390x  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 9:00 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2023-08-12 15:50:24 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Thanks.  I realised that it's easy enough to test that theory about
> > cleanup locks by hacking ConditionalLockBufferForCleanup() to return
> > false randomly.  Then the test occasionally fails as described.  Seems
> > like we'll need to fix that test, but it's not evidence of a server
> > bug, and my signal handler refactoring patch is in the clear.  Thanks
> > for testing it!
>
> WRT fixing the test: I think just using VACUUM FREEZE ought to do the job?
> After changing all the VACUUMs to VACUUM FREEZEs, 031_recovery_conflict.pl
> passes even after I make ConditionalLockBufferForCleanup() fail 100%.

I pushed that change (master only for now, like the other change).



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Richard Guo
Date:
Subject: Re: A minor adjustment to get_cheapest_path_for_pathkeys
Next
From: shveta malik
Date:
Subject: Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby