On 03/06/17 04:45, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 03/06/17 11:10, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>
>> On 02/06/17 22:29, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>> On 02/06/17 08:55, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>>>> On 02/06/17 17:11, Erik Rijkers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-06-02 00:46, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>>>>>> On 31/05/17 21:16, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm seeing a new failure with the patch applied - this time the
>>>>>> history table has missing rows. Petr, I'll put back your access :-)
>>>>> Is this error during 1-minute runs?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm asking because I've moved back to longer (1-hour) runs (no errors
>>>>> so far), and I'd like to keep track of what the most 'vulnerable'
>>>>> parameters are.
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, still using your test config (with my minor modifications).
>>>>
>>>> When I got the error the 1st time, I did a complete make clean and
>>>> rebuild....but it is still possible I've 'done it wrong' - so
>>>> independent confirmation would be good!
>>> Well, I've seen this issue as well while I was developing the fix, but
>>> the patch I proposed fixed it for me as well as the original issue.
>>>
>> While I was testing something for different thread I noticed that I
>> manage transactions incorrectly in this patch. Fixed here, I didn't test
>> it much yet (it takes a while as you know :) ). Not sure if it's related
>> to the issue you've seen though.
>>
>>
> Ok - I've applied this version, and running tests again. I needed to do
> a git pull to apply the patch, so getting some other changes too!
>
Thanks, yes, I forgot to mention that I rebased it against the current
HEAD as well.
-- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services