Hi,
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 05:20:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 07:59:31AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 01:12:25PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> Under a wait of N seconds,
> >> we could still have environments where the wait() could remain stuck
> >> more than N seconds between the moment the condition variable is woken
> >> up and the result of the wait() is reported back to the client. And
> >> hardcoded sleeps make the test slower even on fast machines.
> >
> > Yeah, not ideal so better to keep the test as it is currently (after your
> > refactoring).
>
> Backpedalling a bit on that.. Perhaps it would be useful to keep the
> permutation as disabled in the test and to update the comment in
> basic.spec to tell that this had better be avoided when implementing a
> test if the timing of the return value of a SQL wait() cannot be
> strictly controlled? And also say that putting the wakeup() should be
> last for simple permutations? The point of this spec is also to
> document some good and bad practices.
Yeah, agree that it would make sense to document in the test what has been
discovered here.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
