-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Shutdown (without persist) hangs in Github actions #9
Comments
Could you post a code sample? I briefly looked at the docs and it says "SIGKILL kills the postgres process without letting it relay the signal to its subprocesses, so it might be necessary to kill the individual subprocesses by hand as well." which I didn't know - maybe in my testing I only ever tried to kill it before doing work and the subprocesses were never spawned. |
This sample completes ok locally, but in my Github Actions it hangs indefinitely after printing "closing temp DB"
|
Per #10 the issue is I was dumb with how I designed the shutdown function - probably what happened was that I wrote shutdown as There are a lot of options here to fix this and pretty much all of them are breaking changes (which tbh isn't that big a deal since it's not like I have a ton of users). Probably simplest solution (and also doesn't change the API) is the one you provided but give me a bit to think about it. |
No hurry, but the PR is a separate issue - I see in github that shutdown
never completes on the first call.
…On Thu, 11 Jul 2024, 0:20 Harry Stern, ***@***.***> wrote:
Per #10 <#10> the issue is I
was dumb with how I designed the shutdown function - probably what happened
was that I wrote shutdown as fn shutdown(mut self) but then I wanted to
use it inside drop, which is implemented with fn drop(&mut self) so I
thought "oh I'll just change the signature of shutdown". However, it's
obvious in hindsight that shutdown will then be called twice.
There are a lot of options here to fix this and pretty much all of them
are breaking changes (which tbh isn't that big a deal since it's not like I
have a ton of users). Probably simplest solution (and also doesn't change
the API) is the one you provided but give me a bit to think about it.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#9 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDEBBRYVD3XG7ABXU4BBWLZLWQSJAVCNFSM6AAAAABKSVYIEOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDEMRRGUYDGNBSGQ>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
So the PR doesn't solve the hanging issue? |
nope, it solves a different issue. |
Taking another look at this I wonder if the older version of pg in CI is different than what we have locally and maybe the behavior on sigkill is different, and a newer pg does better cleanup? I can't get this to race locally with 1 or 100 connections. |
I don't think it's a version mismatch - checked this with CI & local versions both 16.3. |
I'm also on linux with 16.3. If you run the test in release mode does it hang in CI still? |
Yup.
…On Sun, 18 Aug 2024, 2:17 Harry Stern, ***@***.***> wrote:
I'm also on linux with 16.3. If you run the test in release mode does it
hang in CI still?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#9 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDEBBTDS5JIQ4MVSKBW5CDZR7KZ7AVCNFSM6AAAAABKSVYIEOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDEOJVGAZDGMZRGU>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
The newest release, v0.5.0, uses fast shutdown instead of sending SIGKILL. Could you check and see if this issue still occurs with the newest version? |
Did you get this to work? |
No, I tried it once, the issue seemed to have persisted, but I didn't have the time to investigate. |
Thanks @nihohit for the quick reply. I'm receiving the same error as you originally posted, so I don't think the issue should be closed. @boustrophedon Have you been able to get it working in Github actions? Update: Issue persists if I change to |
@jacobsvante This is still happening on pgtemp 0.5? |
Yes, it appears so. Do you have any integration tests? |
Yes, they're in the tests/ directory. I just added the sample test from this issue so we'll see what happens: https://github.com/boustrophedon/pgtemp/actions/runs/13167858114 |
The sample provided passed in CI (and then the build failed due to a linting error in the python client tests) |
The issue was that I had not read the requirements section of the readme, sorry a bit much on my plate lately... I had forgot to add these lines: - name: Install postgres
run: sudo apt-get install postgresql postgresql-client
- name: Update path
run: find /usr/lib/postgresql/ -type d -name "bin" >> $GITHUB_PATH I'll see if I can find some time to add a check for this when running pgtest. Would make it less likely for stressed people like me being confused about why the tests are running for a long time and then just fail with a vague error message 😅 What is causing the issue btw? |
I don't know what would have caused your tests to hang - If I remove the postgres install and PATH lines, the tests simply error out. https://github.com/boustrophedon/pgtemp/actions/runs/13188950120/job/36817698923 |
Strange. Maybe it was two tests running simultaneously. I'll see if I can find what was causing it. |
I can't repro this locally, so I don't know what the source of the issue is. The temporary DB, created with
PgTempDB::async_new().await
(sopersist
isn't set), hangs for minutes after a call toshutdown
. Maybe there are some existing connections to the DB, but according to the documentation, this shouldn't blockshutdown
whenpersist
isn't set.This happens on a runner running Ubuntu noble, with postgresql-16 installed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: