From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse |
Date: | 2022-04-15 05:18:59 |
Message-ID: | 1591087.1649999939@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2022-04-14 23:56:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, damn. I changed my script that way and it failed on the tenth
>> iteration (versus a couple hundred successful iterations the other
>> way).
> Just to make sure: This is also on wrasse?
Right, gcc211 with a moderately close approximation to wrasse's
build details. Why that shows the problem when we've not seen
it elsewhere remains to be seen.
> What DSM backend do we end up with on solaris? With shared memory stats
> we're using DSM a lot earlier and more commonly than before.
That ... is an interesting point. It seems to be just "posix" though.
>> So somehow this is related to time-since-initdb, not
>> time-since-postmaster-start. Any ideas?
> Perhaps it makes a difference that we start with a "young" database xid
> age wise? We've had bugs around subtracting xids and ending up on some
> special one in the past.
It does seem like it's got to be related to small XID and/or small
LSN values. No clue right now, but more news tomorrow, I hope.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2022-04-15 05:21:25 | Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-04-15 05:12:05 | Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse |