Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Setting the cost_delay sounds a reasonable thing to do anyway, and in
> fact I already proposed it and nobody objected (AFAIR). Now we only
> have to agree on a reasonable value.
Also note this message:
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:51:40 -0500
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Stats collector frozen?
> If this theory is correct, then we can improve the reliability of the
> stats test a good deal if we put a sleep() at the *start* of the test,
> to let any old backends get out of the way. It seems worth a try
> anyway. I'll add this to HEAD and if the stats failure noise seems to
> go down, we can back-port it.
which was followed by this commit
date: 2007-01-28 00:02:31 -0300; author: tgl; state: Exp; lines: +4 -0;
Add a delay at the start of the stats test, to let any prior stats
activity quiesce. Possibly this will fix the large increase in
non-reproducible stats test failures we've noted since turning on
stats_row_level by default.
Apparently it wasn't enough to completely eliminate the problems. Did
it reduce them? I haven't been watching the buildfarm closely enough to
know for sure.
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly