Hi, On 2022-05-08 13:59:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2022-05-08 11:28:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Per lapwing's latest results [1], this wasn't enough. I'm again thinking > >> we should pull the whole test from the back branches. > > > That failure is different from the earlier failures though. I don't think > > it's > > a timing issue in the test like the deadlock check one. I rather suspect > > it's > > indicative of further problems in this area. > > Yeah, that was my guess too. > > > Potentially the known problem > > with RecoveryConflictInterrupt() running in the signal handler? I think > > Thomas > > has a patch for that... > > Maybe; or given that it's on v10, it could be telling us about some > yet-other problem we perhaps solved since then without realizing > it needed to be back-patched. > > > One failure in ~20 runs, on one animal doesn't seem worth disabling the test > > for. > > No one is going to thank us for shipping a known-unstable test case.
IDK, hiding failures indicating bugs isn't really better, at least if it doesn't look like a bug in the test. But you seem to have a stronger opinion on this than me, so I'll skip the entire test for now :/ Greetings, Andres Freund