Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add amcheck extension to contrib.
On 2017-03-13 14:09:39 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-03-13 15:45:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > I could be wrong, but the most obvious explanation for this failure is > > that autovacuum had a lock on the table or index when we looked. > > Even if that isn't why axolotl failed in this particular case, I think > > it's dead certain that we will see such failures from time to time > > if this test script isn't tightened up. IIUC what the test is trying > > to look for, I think adding "AND pid = pg_backend_pid()" to this query > > would be an appropriate fix. > > Yes, that sounds reasonable. Will do in a bit. Thanks for noticing. Pushed. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add amcheck extension to contrib.
Hi, On 2017-03-13 15:45:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I could be wrong, but the most obvious explanation for this failure is > that autovacuum had a lock on the table or index when we looked. > Even if that isn't why axolotl failed in this particular case, I think > it's dead certain that we will see such failures from time to time > if this test script isn't tightened up. IIUC what the test is trying > to look for, I think adding "AND pid = pg_backend_pid()" to this query > would be an appropriate fix. Yes, that sounds reasonable. Will do in a bit. Thanks for noticing. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add amcheck extension to contrib.
Andres Freund writes: > Add amcheck extension to contrib. axolotl just failed on this: https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=axolotl&dt=2017-03-13%2017%3A49%3A24 *** *** 78,86 -- make sure we don't have any leftover locks SELECT * FROM pg_locks WHERE relation IN ('bttest_a_idx'::regclass, 'bttest_b_idx'::regclass); ! locktype | database | relation | page | tuple | virtualxid | transactionid | classid | objid | objsubid | virtualtransaction | pid | mode | granted | fastpath ! --+--+--+--+---++---+-+---+--++-+--+-+-- ! (0 rows) COMMIT; -- cleanup --- 78,87 -- make sure we don't have any leftover locks SELECT * FROM pg_locks WHERE relation IN ('bttest_a_idx'::regclass, 'bttest_b_idx'::regclass); ! locktype | database | relation | page | tuple | virtualxid | transactionid | classid | objid | objsubid | virtualtransaction | pid | mode | granted | fastpath ! --+--+--+--+---++---+-+---+--++---+-+-+-- ! relation |57562 |57573 | | || | | | | 4/29 | 20342 | AccessShareLock | t | t ! (1 row) COMMIT; -- cleanup I could be wrong, but the most obvious explanation for this failure is that autovacuum had a lock on the table or index when we looked. Even if that isn't why axolotl failed in this particular case, I think it's dead certain that we will see such failures from time to time if this test script isn't tightened up. IIUC what the test is trying to look for, I think adding "AND pid = pg_backend_pid()" to this query would be an appropriate fix. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers