Hi, On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 05:20:42PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 07:59:31AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 01:12:25PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> Under a wait of N seconds, > >> we could still have environments where the wait() could remain stuck > >> more than N seconds between the moment the condition variable is woken > >> up and the result of the wait() is reported back to the client. And > >> hardcoded sleeps make the test slower even on fast machines. > > > > Yeah, not ideal so better to keep the test as it is currently (after your > > refactoring). > > Backpedalling a bit on that.. Perhaps it would be useful to keep the > permutation as disabled in the test and to update the comment in > basic.spec to tell that this had better be avoided when implementing a > test if the timing of the return value of a SQL wait() cannot be > strictly controlled? And also say that putting the wakeup() should be > last for simple permutations? The point of this spec is also to > document some good and bad practices.
Yeah, agree that it would make sense to document in the test what has been discovered here. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
