Re: Windows buildfarm members vs. new async-notify isolation test
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Windows buildfarm members vs. new async-notify isolation test |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 25746.1575436347@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Windows buildfarm members vs. new async-notify isolation test (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Windows buildfarm members vs. new async-notify isolation test
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 10:10 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Hmm ... just looking at the code again, could it be that there's
>> no well-placed CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS? Andrew, could you see if
>> injecting one in what 790026972 added to postgres.c helps?
> I also tried to analyze this failure and it seems this is a good bet,
> but I am also wondering why we have never seen such a timing issue in
> other somewhat similar tests. For ex., one with comment (#
> Cross-backend notification delivery.). Do they have a better way of
> ensuring that the notification will be received or is it purely
> coincidental that they haven't seen such a symptom?
TBH, my bet is that this *won't* fix it, but it seemed like an easy
thing to test. For this to fix it, you'd have to suppose that we
never do a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS during a COMMIT command, which is
improbable at best.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: