Re: A test for replay of regression tests - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: A test for replay of regression tests
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wzk3RYzqdaOs5PUqoUjd=_LbWc7zdDzV6rR6D3kM3C=fNg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: A test for replay of regression tests  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: A test for replay of regression tests  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 8:59 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks.  Ahh, déjà vu...  this probably needs the same treatment as
> b700f96c and 3414099c provided for the reloptions test.  Well, at
> least the first one.  Here's a patch like that.

If you want to know whether or not the buildfarm will have problems
due to VACUUM failing to get a cleanup lock randomly, then I suggest
that you use an approach like the one from my patch here:

https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzkiB-qcsBmWrpzP0nxvrQExoUts1d7TYShg_DrkOHeg4Q@mail.gmail.com

I recently tried it again myself. With the gizmo in place the tests
fail in exactly the same way you've had problems with on the
buildfarm. On the first try, even.

--
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix typo in standby.c
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Corruption during WAL replay