Re: [HACKERS] pgbench regression test failure
От | Fabien COELHO |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] pgbench regression test failure |
Дата | |
Msg-id | alpine.DEB.2.20.1709121955450.30961@lancre обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] pgbench regression test failure (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] pgbench regression test failure
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
>>> Apparently, one of the threads ran 3 transactions where the test script >>> expects it to run at most 2. Is this a pgbench bug, or is the test >>> being overoptimistic about how exact the "-T 2" cutoff is? > >> Probably both? It seems that cutting off on time is not a precise science, >> so I suggest to accept 1, 2 and 3 lines, see attached. > > Before I'd deciphered the test output fully, I was actually guessing that > the problem was the opposite, namely too few lines. The test was waiting for betwen 1 and 2 lines, so I assumed that the 3 should the number of lines found. > Isn't it possible that some thread is slow enough to start up that it > doesn't get to run any transactions? IOW, do we need to allow 0 to 3 > lines? By definition, parallelism induces non determinism. When I put 2 seconds, the intention was that I would get a non empty trace with a "every second" aggregation. I would rather take a longer test rather than allowing an empty file: the point is to check that something is generated, but avoiding a longer test is desirable. So I would suggest to stick to between 1 and 3, and if it fails then maybe add one second... -- Fabien. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: