Re: Some other CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS culprits

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2021-05-14 16:53:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> An idea I'd been toying with was to make invals probabilistic, that is
>> there would be X% chance of an inval being forced at any particular
>> opportunity. Then you could dial X up or down to make a tradeoff
>> between speed and the extent of coverage you get from a single run.
>> (Over time, you could expect pretty complete coverage even with X
>> not very close to 1, I think.)

> That'd make sense, I've been wondering about something similar. But I'm
> a bit worried about that making it harder to reproduce problems
> reliably?

Once you know or suspect a problem, you dial X up to 1 and wait.

regards, tom lane