From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <jdavis(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Add contrib/pg_walinspect. |
Date: | 2022-04-27 00:25:29 |
Message-ID: | 287795.1651019129@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I think it's a bug in pg_walinspect, so I'll move the discussion back
> here. Here's one rather simple way to fix it, that has survived
> running the test a thousand times (using a recipe that failed for me
> quite soon, after 20-100 attempts or so; I never figured out how to
> get the 50% failure rate reported by Tom).
Not sure what we're doing differently, but plain "make check" in
contrib/pg_walinspect fails pretty consistently for me on gcc23.
I tried it again just now and got five failures in five attempts.
I then installed your patch and got the same failure, three times
out of three, so I don't think we're there yet.
Again, since I do have this problem in captivity, I'm happy
to spend some time poking at it. But I could use a little
guidance where to poke, because I've not looked at any of
the WAL prefetch stuff.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-04-27 01:10:50 | Re: pgsql: Add contrib/pg_walinspect. |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-04-27 00:06:30 | Re: pgsql: Add contrib/pg_walinspect. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-04-27 01:10:50 | Re: pgsql: Add contrib/pg_walinspect. |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-04-27 00:10:40 | Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach) |