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.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
