On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 10:00:00AM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> I have re-run the tests and found out that the issue was fixed by
> d3c5f37dd. It changed the inner of the loop "while (PQisBusy(conn))",
> formerly contained in pgfdw_get_result() as follows:
> /* Data available in
Hello Nathan,
08.03.2024 01:00, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 12:00:01PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
So I would not say that it's a dominant failure for now, and given that
04a09ee lives in master only, maybe we can save two commits (Revert +
Revert of revert) while moving to
On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 12:00:01PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> So I would not say that it's a dominant failure for now, and given that
> 04a09ee lives in master only, maybe we can save two commits (Revert +
> Revert of revert) while moving to a more persistent solution.
I just checked in on t
08.12.2023 02:02, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 09:55:58AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
Now we have the question of whether to go forwards (commit the "socket
table" thing), or backwards (revert 04a09ee for now to clear the CI
failures). I don't love the hidden complexity of the s
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 09:55:58AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Oh, wow. Nice detective work! Thank you for figuring that out.
+1
> Now we have the question of whether to go forwards (commit the "socket
> table" thing), or backwards (revert 04a09ee for now to clear the CI
> failures). I don't
On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 10:00 PM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> I think, I've found out what's going on here.
> The culprit is WSAEnumNetworkEvents() assisted by non-trivial logic of
> ExecAppendAsyncEventWait().
> For the case noccurred > 1, ExecAppendAsyncEventWait() performs a loop,
> where ExecAsync
Hello Thomas,
03.12.2023 09:00, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 6:00 PM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
I've managed to reproduce the failure locally when running postgres_fdw_x/
regress in parallel (--num-processes 10). It reproduced for me on
on 04a09ee94 (iterations 1, 2, 4), but not on
On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 6:00 PM Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> I've managed to reproduce the failure locally when running postgres_fdw_x/
> regress in parallel (--num-processes 10). It reproduced for me on
> on 04a09ee94 (iterations 1, 2, 4), but not on 04a09ee94~1 (30 iterations
> passed).
>
> I'm goin
Hello Thomas,
03.12.2023 02:48, Thomas Munro wrote:
Thanks for finding this correlation. Yeah, poking around in the cfbot
history database I see about 1 failure like that per day since that
date, and there doesn't seem to be anything else as obviously likely
to be related to wakeups and timeout
On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 9:38 AM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> AFAICT the failures began around September 10th, which leads me to wonder
> if this is related to commit 04a09ee. That is little more than a wild
> guess, though. I haven't been able to deduce much else from the logs I can
> find, and I didn
10 matches
Mail list logo
