Re: A failure in 031_recovery_conflict.pl on Debian/s390x
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
To: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Date: 2023-08-28T22:00:56Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Fix instability in 031_recovery_conflict.pl.
- 0174c2d213f6 17.0 landed
-
Fix recovery conflict SIGUSR1 handling.
- 0da096d78e1e 17.0 landed
-
Disable 031_recovery_conflict.pl in 15 and 16.
- e13de4913913 15.5 landed
- 8d1cf9674a25 16.0 landed
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 1:58 AM Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote: > This should be fixed before the 16 release. Here's what I was thinking of doing for this, given where we are in the release schedule: * commit the signal-refactoring patch in master only * plan to back-patch it into 16 in a later point release (it's much harder to back-patch further than that) * look into what we can do to suppress the offending test for 16 in the meantime But looking into that just now, I am curious about something. The whole area of recovery conflicts has been buggy forever, and the tests were only developed fairly recently by Melanie and Andres (April 2022), and then backpatched to all releases. They were disabled again in release branches 10-14 (discussion at https://postgr.es/m/3447060.1652032749@sss.pgh.pa.us): +plan skip_all => "disabled until after minor releases, due to instability"; Now your mainframe build bot is regularly failing for whatever timing reason, in 16 and master. That's quite useful because your tests have made us or at least me a lot more confident that the fix is good (one of the reasons progress has been slow is that failures in CI and BF were pretty rare and hard to analyse). But... I wonder why it isn't failing for you in 15? Are you able to check if it ever has? I suppose we could go and do the "disabled due to instability" thing in 15 and 16, and then later we'll un-disable it in 16 when we back-patch the fix into it.