pgsql: Increase the statement_timeout value used in the prepared_xacts
Log Message:
-----------
Increase the statement_timeout value used in the prepared_xacts regression
test. We have seen some buildfarm failures that seem to be due to this
limit being unexpectedly exceeded when the machine is under load.
Modified Files:
--------------
pgsql/src/test/regress/sql:
prepared_xacts.sql (r1.1 -> r1.2)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/test/regress/sql/prepared_xacts.sql?r1=1.1&r2=1.2)
pgsql/src/test/regress/expected:
prepared_xacts.out (r1.4 -> r1.5)
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/test/regress/expected/prepared_xacts.out?r1=1.4&r2=1.5)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
Increase the statement_timeout value used in the prepared_xacts
regression test. We have seen some buildfarm failures that seem
to be due to this limit being unexpectedly exceeded when the machine
is under load.
Just as a data point, I thought I saw fennec in the list of machines
exhibiting this problem, and I can safely vouch that it extremely unlikely
the machine was under load at the time.
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200804282359
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEAREDAAYFAkgWnRMACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgG9QCgqVUvOnE5diN64OSRa6TmDvyz
wSkAn2y9sP+lnc9NllP3SY1gRRm68BK8
=HQwP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes:
Increase the statement_timeout value used in the prepared_xacts
regression test. We have seen some buildfarm failures that seem
to be due to this limit being unexpectedly exceeded when the machine
is under load.
Just as a data point, I thought I saw fennec in the list of machines
exhibiting this problem, and I can safely vouch that it extremely unlikely
the machine was under load at the time.
Yeah, I'm not totally sold that this is a "fix" either --- although
there's at least one prior case of an intermittent buildfarm failure
that went away when we increased the timeout sufficiently.
I think a 2-line change is an appropriate amount of effort for now.
If we keep seeing the failure then we'll know we need to look closer.
regards, tom lane