Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Setting the cost_delay sounds a reasonable thing to do anyway, and in > fact I already proposed it and nobody objected (AFAIR). Now we only > have to agree on a reasonable value.
Also note this message: Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:51:40 -0500 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Stats collector frozen? [...] > If this theory is correct, then we can improve the reliability of the > stats test a good deal if we put a sleep() at the *start* of the test, > to let any old backends get out of the way. It seems worth a try > anyway. I'll add this to HEAD and if the stats failure noise seems to > go down, we can back-port it. which was followed by this commit revision 1.6 date: 2007-01-28 00:02:31 -0300; author: tgl; state: Exp; lines: +4 -0; Add a delay at the start of the stats test, to let any prior stats activity quiesce. Possibly this will fix the large increase in non-reproducible stats test failures we've noted since turning on stats_row_level by default. Apparently it wasn't enough to completely eliminate the problems. Did it reduce them? I haven't been watching the buildfarm closely enough to know for sure. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
