Horton

Re: SQL:2011 application time

Paul A Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>

View thread
From: Paul Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Date: 2025-01-23T23:54:15Z
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 →

  1. Rename gist stratnum support function

  2. Remove support for temporal RESTRICT foreign keys

  3. Cache NO ACTION foreign keys separately from RESTRICT foreign keys

  4. Fix NO ACTION temporal foreign keys when the referenced endpoints change

  5. Improve whitespace in without_overlaps test

  6. Tests for logical replication with temporal keys

  7. Support for GiST in get_equal_strategy_number()

  8. Make the conditions in IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull() more explicit

  9. Replace get_equal_strategy_number_for_am() by get_equal_strategy_number()

  10. Improve internal logical replication error for missing equality strategy

  11. Simplify IsIndexUsableForReplicaIdentityFull()

  12. Fix ALTER TABLE / REPLICA IDENTITY for temporal tables

  13. doc: Update pg_constraint.conexclop docs for WITHOUT OVERLAPS

  14. doc: Add PERIOD to ALTER TABLE reference docs

  15. doc: Add WITHOUT OVERLAPS to ALTER TABLE reference docs

  16. Add temporal FOREIGN KEY contraints

  17. Add temporal PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE constraints

  18. Add stratnum GiST support function

  19. Avoid crashing when a JIT-inlined backend function throws an error.

  20. Revert temporal primary keys and foreign keys

  21. Fix ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING/UPDATE for temporal indexes

  22. Add test for REPLICA IDENTITY with a temporal key

  23. Use half-open interval notation in without_overlaps tests

  24. Use daterange and YMD in without_overlaps tests instead of tsrange.

  25. Rename pg_constraint.conwithoutoverlaps to conperiod

  26. Fix comment on gist_stratnum_btree

  27. Add missing TAP test name

  28. Improve error handling of HMAC computations

  29. Rename functions to avoid future conflicts

On 1/23/25 15:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> Paul Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com> writes:
>> I can't find a regression.diffs in the second link. Is there one? I can't tell if it's the same
>> failure as in the first link as not.
> 
> It is the same, but the diff is buried in some other file,
> probably regress_log_027_stream_regress.

Ah yes, I found it. It's the same failure:

=== dumping 
/home/bf/bf-build/mylodon/HEAD/pgsql.build/testrun/recovery/027_stream_regress/data/regression.diffs ===
diff -U3 /home/bf/bf-build/mylodon/HEAD/pgsql/src/test/regress/expected/without_overlaps.out 
/home/bf/bf-build/mylodon/HEAD/pgsql.build/testrun/recovery/027_stream_regress/data/results/without_overlaps.out
--- /home/bf/bf-build/mylodon/HEAD/pgsql/src/test/regress/expected/without_overlaps.out	2025-01-21 
13:46:02.766931451 +0000
+++ 
/home/bf/bf-build/mylodon/HEAD/pgsql.build/testrun/recovery/027_stream_regress/data/results/without_overlaps.out 
2025-01-22 01:19:54.287558175 +0000
@@ -1792,8 +1792,6 @@
    SET valid_at = CASE WHEN lower(valid_at) = '2018-01-01' THEN daterange('2018-01-01', '2018-01-05')
                        WHEN lower(valid_at) = '2018-02-01' THEN daterange('2018-01-05', 
'2018-03-01') END
    WHERE id = '[6,7)';
-ERROR:  update or delete on table "temporal_rng" violates RESTRICT setting of foreign key 
constraint "temporal_fk_rng2rng_fk" on table "temporal_fk_rng2rng"
-DETAIL:  Key (id, valid_at)=([6,7), [2018-01-01,2018-02-01)) is referenced from table 
"temporal_fk_rng2rng".
  -- a PK update that fails because both are referenced (even before commit):
  BEGIN;
    ALTER TABLE temporal_fk_rng2rng
=== EOF ===

>> I ran installcheck-parallel on my own machine continuously over night and haven't been able to
>> reproduce this yet. How many cases have appeared on the build farm? More than these two? And just to
>> confirm: they are only since committing 1772d554b0?
> 
> I've only noticed the two, but I did not mount an aggressive search.
> It's possible that there were failures before 1772d554b0, since I
> now see that the diff is in a test case that is older than that.

Okay, I'll keep in mind that it could be older.

>> The infrequent failure made me suspect a memory error. It's hard to come up with explanations.
> 
> Same error on two different machines makes it hard to credit hardware
> glitches, if that's what you mean.  I could believe a bad pointer
> accessing unpredictable memory, but perhaps valgrind would catch that.

Right, something like a bad pointer: the kind of memory error that *I* cause, not the celestial 
bodies. But I don't think it's a great theory considering how clean, limited, and consistent the 
test failure is.

Another thought was that the test here is UPDATing two rows at once, and somehow things happen in an 
unusual order for these failures. But again for a RESTRICT check we're only querying the referencing 
table. It really looks like the RESTRICT constraint is doing the 1772d554b0 NO ACTION check. . . .

Yours,

-- 
Paul              ~{:-)
pj@illuminatedcomputing.com