Re: disabled SSL log_like tests
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: disabled SSL log_like tests |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ed56081d-ab7c-4dd2-a795-495ef4c15ffd@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: disabled SSL log_like tests (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: disabled SSL log_like tests
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-04-18 Fr 7:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> What I think happened here is that a previous backend hadn't exited >> yet when we start the test, and when its report does come out, >> connect_fails prematurely stops waiting. (In the above, evidently >> the child process we want to wait for is 599, but we're fooled by >> a delayed report for 25401.) So my v1 patch needs work. >> Maybe we can make the test compare the PIDs in the "forked new client >> backend" and "client backend exited" log messages. Stay tuned... > Okay, this version seems more reliable. > +See C<log_check(...)>. CAUTION: use of either option requires that +the server's log_min_messages be at least DEBUG2, and that no other +client backend is launched concurrently. These requirements allow +C<connect_fails> to wait to see the postmaster-log report of backend +exit, without which there is a race condition as to whether we will +see the expected backend log output. That seems a little fragile. I can imagine test authors easily forgetting this. Is it worth sanity checking to make sure log_min_messages is appropriately set? cheers andrew > -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: