Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jelte Fennema-Nio
Subject Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel
Date
Msg-id CAGECzQSmXBwHeTSHxVMtTo8JAexq0z8_rpUuAkHwMm2VbRvseg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 19:28, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> On 2024-Mar-12, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > Hmm, buildfarm member kestrel (which uses
> > -fsanitize=undefined,alignment) failed:
> >
> > # Running: libpq_pipeline -r 700 cancel port=49975 host=/tmp/dFh46H7YGc
> > dbname='postgres'
> > test cancellations...
> > libpq_pipeline:260: query did not fail when it was expected
>
> Hm, I tried using the same compile flags, couldn't reproduce.

Okay, it passed now it seems so I guess this test is flaky somehow.
The error message and the timing difference between failed and
succeeded buildfarm run clearly indicates that the pg_sleep ran its
180 seconds to completion (so cancel was never processed for some
reason).

**failed case**
282/285 postgresql:libpq_pipeline / libpq_pipeline/001_libpq_pipeline
           ERROR           191.56s   exit status 1

**succeeded case**

252/285 postgresql:libpq_pipeline / libpq_pipeline/001_libpq_pipeline
           OK               10.01s   21 subtests passed

I don't see any obvious reason for how this test can be flaky, but
I'll think a bit more about it tomorrow.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Spurious pgstat_drop_replslot() call
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: perl: unsafe empty pattern behavior