On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 12:12 AM Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 9:02 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 2026-04-08 21:36:48 -0700, Lukas Fittl wrote:
> > >
> > > > What do you think about making pg_test_timing warn and return 1 if there is a
> > > > tsc clocksource but the calibrated frequency differs by more than, idk, 10%?
> > > > I'm worried that there might be other problems like this lurking and we
> > > > wouldn't know about them unless the issue is of a similar magnitude.
> > >
> > > Yeah, that seems like a good idea. If I understand correctly you're
> > > thinking we could tell the user to switch to
> > > timing_clock_source=system in that case? (i.e. this is only a
> > > pg_test_timing notice, not something "smarter" in the backend itself)
> >
> > I'd even just say "investigate your system an/or report a bug to postgres" :)
> >
>
> Sure, seems reasonable. I went ahead and added that in the attached
> v27 (squashed with your other change).
>
> Example how that looks like (tested without the fix in place):
>
> ---
>
> TSC frequency source: x86, hypervisor, cpuid 0x15
> TSC frequency in use: 7 kHz
> TSC frequency from calibration: 2500260 kHz
> WARNING: Calibrated TSC frequency differs by 35717900.0% from the TSC
> frequency in use
> HINT: Consider setting timing_clock_source to 'system'. Report bugs to
> <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>.
>
> TSC clock source will be used by default, unless timing_clock_source
> is set to 'system'.
>
> ---
>
> I also added the extra newline before the "will be used by default"
> message, because I felt its too much information bunched together
> otherwise.
I just realized that you initially suggested to do a "return 1", but I
did not include that in the version I sent. I think we could easily do
an "exit(1)" after that warning is printed - seems sensible to get
CI/buildfarm to fail clearly.
Thanks,
Lukas
--
Lukas Fittl
