Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-10-16 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: >>> Fewer people will test as we grow the list of modules they must first >>> install. >> At worst, all we have to do is provide a script >> that fetches them, from distro repos if possible,

Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-10-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> Fewer people will test as we grow the list of modules they must first >> install. > > Meh, I don't buy that. Well, I do. Prerequisites are a pain, and the more of them there are, the more pain it is. > At worst, all we have to do is provid

Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-10-13 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 10/13/2017 01:04 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 05:57:24PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> On 6 October 2017 at 14:03, Noah Misch wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 10:32:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: (I do kinda wonder why we rolled our own RecursiveCopy; surely there's >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-10-12 Thread Noah Misch
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 05:57:24PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 6 October 2017 at 14:03, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 10:32:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> (I do kinda wonder why we rolled our own RecursiveCopy; surely there's > >> a better implementation in CPAN?) > > > > Few

Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-10-06 Thread Craig Ringer
On 6 October 2017 at 14:03, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 10:32:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> (I do kinda wonder why we rolled our own RecursiveCopy; surely there's >> a better implementation in CPAN?) > > Fewer people will test as we grow the list of modules they must first install

Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-10-05 Thread Noah Misch
On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 10:32:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > (I do kinda wonder why we rolled our own RecursiveCopy; surely there's > a better implementation in CPAN?) Fewer people will test as we grow the list of modules they must first install. Bundling a copy is tempting, but most CPAN modules u

Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-09-11 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier writes: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm, I don't much like having it silently ignore files that are present; >> that seems like a foot-gun in the long run. What do you think of the >> attached? > That looks good to me. I have tried pretty hard to break

Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-09-11 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Hm, I don't much like having it silently ignore files that are present; > that seems like a foot-gun in the long run. What do you think of the > attached? That looks good to me. I have tried pretty hard to break it, but could not. -- Michael

Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-09-11 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier writes: > On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> The specific case we need to allow is "ENOENT on a file/dir that was >> there a moment ago". I think it still behooves us to complain about >> anything else. If you think it's a simple fix, have at it. But >> I see

Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-09-10 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Yeah, even if we fixed this particular call site, I'm sure the issue >>> would come up again. Certainly we expect hot backups to work with >>> a changing source dir

Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-09-09 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier writes: > On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah, even if we fixed this particular call site, I'm sure the issue >> would come up again. Certainly we expect hot backups to work with >> a changing source directory. > In short, I'd still like to keep RecursiveCopy

Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-09-09 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: >>> I'm not real sure if the appropriate answer to this is "we need to fix >>> RecursiveCopy" or "we need to fix the callers to not call RecursiveCopy >>> until the source directory is stable". Thoughts? > >> ... So making

Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-09-08 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier writes: > On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> In a moment of idleness I tried to run the TAP tests on pademelon, >> which is a mighty old and slow machine. > How long did it take? The last time I tried it, make check-world took about 3 hours IIRC. But that was a

Re: [HACKERS] Still another race condition in recovery TAP tests

2017-09-08 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > In a moment of idleness I tried to run the TAP tests on pademelon, > which is a mighty old and slow machine. How long did it take? Just wondering if that's actually the slowest one or not to run the full set of recovery tests. This would be might