Re: Add a new BGWORKER_BYPASS_ROLELOGINCHECK flag
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Add a new BGWORKER_BYPASS_ROLELOGINCHECK flag |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2186072.1697424442@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add a new BGWORKER_BYPASS_ROLELOGINCHECK flag (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Add a new BGWORKER_BYPASS_ROLELOGINCHECK flag
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes: > The buildfarm has provided some feedback, and the new tests have been > unstable on mamba: > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=mamba&dt=2023-10-15%2005%3A04%3A21 Yeah. FWIW, I tried to reproduce this on mamba's host, but did not see it again in 100 or so tries. > In more details: > # poll_query_until timed out executing this query: > # SELECT datname, usename, wait_event FROM pg_stat_activity > # WHERE backend_type = 'worker_spi dynamic' AND > # pid = ; > # with stderr: > # ERROR: syntax error at or near ";" > # LINE 3: pid = ; > So this looks like a hard failure in starting the worker that should > bypass the role login check. The logs don't offer much information, > but I think I know what's going on here: at this stage of the tests, > the number of workers created is 7, very close to the limit of > max_worker_processes, at 8 by default. So one parallel worker spawned > by any of the other bgworkers would be enough to prevent the last one > to start, and mamba has been slow enough in the startup of the static > workers to show that this could be possible. I agree that that probably is the root cause, and we should fix it by bumping up max_worker_processes in this test. But this failure is annoying in another way. Evidently, worker_spi_launch returned NULL, which must have been from here: if (!RegisterDynamicBackgroundWorker(&worker, &handle)) PG_RETURN_NULL(); Why in the world is that "return NULL", and not "ereport(ERROR)" like all the other failure conditions in that function? If there's actually a defensible reason for the C code to act like that, then all the call sites need to have checks for a null result. (cc'ing Robert, as this coding originated at 090d0f205.) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: