On 03/06/17 04:45, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > On 03/06/17 11:10, Petr Jelinek wrote: > >> On 02/06/17 22:29, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>> On 02/06/17 08:55, Mark Kirkwood wrote: >>>> On 02/06/17 17:11, Erik Rijkers wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2017-06-02 00:46, Mark Kirkwood wrote: >>>>>> On 31/05/17 21:16, Petr Jelinek wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm seeing a new failure with the patch applied - this time the >>>>>> history table has missing rows. Petr, I'll put back your access :-) >>>>> Is this error during 1-minute runs? >>>>> >>>>> I'm asking because I've moved back to longer (1-hour) runs (no errors >>>>> so far), and I'd like to keep track of what the most 'vulnerable' >>>>> parameters are. >>>>> >>>> Yeah, still using your test config (with my minor modifications). >>>> >>>> When I got the error the 1st time, I did a complete make clean and >>>> rebuild....but it is still possible I've 'done it wrong' - so >>>> independent confirmation would be good! >>> Well, I've seen this issue as well while I was developing the fix, but >>> the patch I proposed fixed it for me as well as the original issue. >>> >> While I was testing something for different thread I noticed that I >> manage transactions incorrectly in this patch. Fixed here, I didn't test >> it much yet (it takes a while as you know :) ). Not sure if it's related >> to the issue you've seen though. >> >> > Ok - I've applied this version, and running tests again. I needed to do > a git pull to apply the patch, so getting some other changes too! >
Thanks, yes, I forgot to mention that I rebased it against the current HEAD as well. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
