Thread
-
Buildfarm: Enabling injection points on basilisk/dogfish (Alpine / musl)
Wolfgang Walther <walther@technowledgy.de> — 2025-04-12T17:51:06Z
I recently enabled more features on my two buildfarm animals basilisk and dogfish, which are running on Alpine with musl-libc in a docker container. --with-libnuma and --with-liburing seemed to work fine and have been enabled for the last few runs, but --enable-injection-points does not [1]. With injection points enabled, I get the following errors in test_aio: [15:14:45.408](0.000s) not ok 187 - worker: first hard IO error is reported: expected stderr [15:14:45.409](0.000s) [15:14:45.409](0.000s) # Failed test 'worker: first hard IO error is reported: expected stderr' # at t/001_aio.pl line 810. [15:14:45.409](0.000s) # 'psql:<stdin>:88: ERROR: could not read blocks 2..2 in file "base/5/16408": I/O error' # doesn't match '(?^:ERROR:.*could not read blocks 2\.\.2 in file \"base/.*\": Input/output error)' 5 more tests in that suite fail with similar errors. Full logs in the artifact downloads of the CI run [2]. It seems like it's just the error message that is different and has "I/O" instead of "Input/output"? On a more general note, does enabling injection points make any sense here? I see that coverage in the build farm is not very big. IIUC, those are a development tool, so might not be relevant, because nobody is developing on Alpine / musl? Best, Wolfgang [1]: https://github.com/technowledgy/postgresql-buildfarm-alpine/pull/100 [2]: https://github.com/technowledgy/postgresql-buildfarm-alpine/actions/runs/14420687470?pr=100
-
Re: Buildfarm: Enabling injection points on basilisk/dogfish (Alpine / musl)
Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> — 2025-04-13T02:10:39Z
On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 07:51:06PM +0200, Wolfgang Walther wrote: > With injection points enabled, I get the following errors in test_aio: > > > [15:14:45.408](0.000s) not ok 187 - worker: first hard IO error is reported: > expected stderr > [15:14:45.409](0.000s) > [15:14:45.409](0.000s) # Failed test 'worker: first hard IO error is > reported: expected stderr' > # at t/001_aio.pl line 810. > [15:14:45.409](0.000s) # 'psql:<stdin>:88: ERROR: could > not read blocks 2..2 in file "base/5/16408": I/O error' > # doesn't match '(?^:ERROR:.*could not read blocks 2\.\.2 in file > \"base/.*\": Input/output error)' > It seems like it's just the error message that is different and has "I/O" > instead of "Input/output"? Looks like it. > On a more general note, does enabling injection points make any sense here? Yes, it does. > I see that coverage in the build farm is not very big. IIUC, those are a > development tool, so might not be relevant, because nobody is developing on > Alpine / musl? No, whether anyone develops on the platform is not a factor. One hasn't fully tested PostgreSQL until one builds with injection points.
-
Re: Buildfarm: Enabling injection points on basilisk/dogfish (Alpine / musl)
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2025-04-13T15:19:29Z
On 2025-04-12 Sa 10:10 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 07:51:06PM +0200, Wolfgang Walther wrote: >> With injection points enabled, I get the following errors in test_aio: >> >> >> [15:14:45.408](0.000s) not ok 187 - worker: first hard IO error is reported: >> expected stderr >> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) >> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) # Failed test 'worker: first hard IO error is >> reported: expected stderr' >> # at t/001_aio.pl line 810. >> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) # 'psql:<stdin>:88: ERROR: could >> not read blocks 2..2 in file "base/5/16408": I/O error' >> # doesn't match '(?^:ERROR:.*could not read blocks 2\.\.2 in file >> \"base/.*\": Input/output error)' >> It seems like it's just the error message that is different and has "I/O" >> instead of "Input/output"? > Looks like it. > >> On a more general note, does enabling injection points make any sense here? > Yes, it does. > >> I see that coverage in the build farm is not very big. IIUC, those are a >> development tool, so might not be relevant, because nobody is developing on >> Alpine / musl? > No, whether anyone develops on the platform is not a factor. One hasn't fully > tested PostgreSQL until one builds with injection points. > > Here's a simple fix ... also removes some unnecessary escaping and leaning toothpick syndrome. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
-
Re: Buildfarm: Enabling injection points on basilisk/dogfish (Alpine / musl)
Wolfgang Walther <walther@technowledgy.de> — 2025-04-13T17:27:33Z
Andrew Dunstan: > > On 2025-04-12 Sa 10:10 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 07:51:06PM +0200, Wolfgang Walther wrote: >>> With injection points enabled, I get the following errors in test_aio: >>> >>> >>> [15:14:45.408](0.000s) not ok 187 - worker: first hard IO error is >>> reported: >>> expected stderr >>> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) >>> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) # Failed test 'worker: first hard IO error is >>> reported: expected stderr' >>> # at t/001_aio.pl line 810. >>> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) # 'psql:<stdin>:88: ERROR: could >>> not read blocks 2..2 in file "base/5/16408": I/O error' >>> # doesn't match '(?^:ERROR:.*could not read blocks 2\.\.2 in file >>> \"base/.*\": Input/output error)' >>> It seems like it's just the error message that is different and has >>> "I/O" >>> instead of "Input/output"? >> Looks like it. >> >>> On a more general note, does enabling injection points make any >>> sense here? >> Yes, it does. >> >>> I see that coverage in the build farm is not very big. IIUC, those >>> are a >>> development tool, so might not be relevant, because nobody is >>> developing on >>> Alpine / musl? >> No, whether anyone develops on the platform is not a factor. One >> hasn't fully >> tested PostgreSQL until one builds with injection points. >> >> > > Here's a simple fix ... also removes some unnecessary escaping and > leaning toothpick syndrome. Confirmed - this works! Thanks, Wolfgang
-
Re: Buildfarm: Enabling injection points on basilisk/dogfish (Alpine / musl)
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2025-04-13T17:51:28Z
Hi, On April 13, 2025 7:27:33 PM GMT+02:00, Wolfgang Walther <walther@technowledgy.de> wrote: >Andrew Dunstan: >> >> On 2025-04-12 Sa 10:10 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 07:51:06PM +0200, Wolfgang Walther wrote: >>>> With injection points enabled, I get the following errors in test_aio: >>>> >>>> >>>> [15:14:45.408](0.000s) not ok 187 - worker: first hard IO error is reported: >>>> expected stderr >>>> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) >>>> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) # Failed test 'worker: first hard IO error is >>>> reported: expected stderr' >>>> # at t/001_aio.pl line 810. >>>> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) # 'psql:<stdin>:88: ERROR: could >>>> not read blocks 2..2 in file "base/5/16408": I/O error' >>>> # doesn't match '(?^:ERROR:.*could not read blocks 2\.\.2 in file >>>> \"base/.*\": Input/output error)' >>>> It seems like it's just the error message that is different and has "I/O" >>>> instead of "Input/output"? >>> Looks like it. >>> >>>> On a more general note, does enabling injection points make any sense here? >>> Yes, it does. >>> >>>> I see that coverage in the build farm is not very big. IIUC, those are a >>>> development tool, so might not be relevant, because nobody is developing on >>>> Alpine / musl? >>> No, whether anyone develops on the platform is not a factor. One hasn't fully >>> tested PostgreSQL until one builds with injection points. >>> >>> >> >> Here's a simple fix ... also removes some unnecessary escaping and leaning toothpick syndrome. > >Confirmed - this works! Thanks for testing and writing up a fix. Andrew, would you be ok applying it? I've been traveling the last 24h and should probably not handing sharp commit bits tonight. I'm not too surprised about failures like this, when writing the tests up I was worried about different formulations. But after seeing freebsd, glibc Linux, netbsd, openbsd windows all working the same I thought we were in the clear. Greetings, Andres -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-
Re: Buildfarm: Enabling injection points on basilisk/dogfish (Alpine / musl)
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2025-04-13T18:47:55Z
On 2025-04-13 Su 1:51 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On April 13, 2025 7:27:33 PM GMT+02:00, Wolfgang Walther <walther@technowledgy.de> wrote: >> Andrew Dunstan: >>> On 2025-04-12 Sa 10:10 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >>>> On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 07:51:06PM +0200, Wolfgang Walther wrote: >>>>> With injection points enabled, I get the following errors in test_aio: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [15:14:45.408](0.000s) not ok 187 - worker: first hard IO error is reported: >>>>> expected stderr >>>>> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) >>>>> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) # Failed test 'worker: first hard IO error is >>>>> reported: expected stderr' >>>>> # at t/001_aio.pl line 810. >>>>> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) # 'psql:<stdin>:88: ERROR: could >>>>> not read blocks 2..2 in file "base/5/16408": I/O error' >>>>> # doesn't match '(?^:ERROR:.*could not read blocks 2\.\.2 in file >>>>> \"base/.*\": Input/output error)' >>>>> It seems like it's just the error message that is different and has "I/O" >>>>> instead of "Input/output"? >>>> Looks like it. >>>> >>>>> On a more general note, does enabling injection points make any sense here? >>>> Yes, it does. >>>> >>>>> I see that coverage in the build farm is not very big. IIUC, those are a >>>>> development tool, so might not be relevant, because nobody is developing on >>>>> Alpine / musl? >>>> No, whether anyone develops on the platform is not a factor. One hasn't fully >>>> tested PostgreSQL until one builds with injection points. >>>> >>>> >>> Here's a simple fix ... also removes some unnecessary escaping and leaning toothpick syndrome. >> Confirmed - this works! > Thanks for testing and writing up a fix. Andrew, would you be ok applying it? I've been traveling the last 24h and should probably not handing sharp commit bits tonight. > > I'm not too surprised about failures like this, when writing the tests up I was worried about different formulations. But after seeing freebsd, glibc Linux, netbsd, openbsd windows all working the same I thought we were in the clear. > pushed. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com