dikkop failed the pg_combinebackupCheck/006_db_file_copy.pl test
От | Alexander Lakhin |
---|---|
Тема | dikkop failed the pg_combinebackupCheck/006_db_file_copy.pl test |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 877b1f23-35d2-31b2-2fcd-d176fd3d05c4@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Tomas, Please take a look at a recent dikkop's failure [1]. The regress_log_006_db_file_copy file from that run shows: [02:08:57.929](0.014s) # initializing database system by copying initdb template ... [02:09:22.511](24.583s) ok 1 - full backup ... [02:10:35.758](73.247s) not ok 2 - incremental backup 006_db_file_copy_primary.log contains: 2024-07-28 02:09:29.441 UTC [67785:12] 006_db_file_copy.pl LOG: received replication command: START_REPLICATION SLOT "pg_basebackup_67785" 0/4000000 TIMELINE 1 2024-07-28 02:09:29.441 UTC [67785:13] 006_db_file_copy.pl STATEMENT: START_REPLICATION SLOT "pg_basebackup_67785" 0/4000000 TIMELINE 1 2024-07-28 02:09:29.441 UTC [67785:14] 006_db_file_copy.pl LOG: acquired physical replication slot "pg_basebackup_67785" 2024-07-28 02:09:29.441 UTC [67785:15] 006_db_file_copy.pl STATEMENT: START_REPLICATION SLOT "pg_basebackup_67785" 0/4000000 TIMELINE 1 2024-07-28 02:10:29.487 UTC [67785:16] 006_db_file_copy.pl LOG: terminating walsender process due to replication timeout 2024-07-28 02:10:29.487 UTC [67785:17] 006_db_file_copy.pl STATEMENT: START_REPLICATION SLOT "pg_basebackup_67785" 0/4000000 TIMELINE 1 It looks like this incremental backup operation was performed slower than usual (it took more than 60 seconds and apparently was interrupted due to wal_sender_timeout). But looking at regress_log_006_db_file_copy from the 6 previous (successful) test runs, we can see: [14:22:16.841](43.215s) ok 2 - incremental backup [02:14:42.888](34.595s) ok 2 - incremental backup [17:51:16.152](43.708s) ok 2 - incremental backup [04:07:16.757](31.087s) ok 2 - incremental backup [12:15:01.256](49.432s) ok 2 - incremental backup [01:06:02.482](52.364s) ok 2 - incremental backup Thus reaching 60s (e.g., due to some background activity) on this animal seems pretty possible. So maybe it would make sense to increase wal_sender_timeout for it, say, to 120s? [1] https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=dikkop&dt=2024-07-27%2023%3A22%3A57 Best regards, Alexander
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: