Re: 039_end_of_wal: error in "xl_tot_len zero" test

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Anton Voloshin <a(dot)voloshin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 039_end_of_wal: error in "xl_tot_len zero" test
Date: 2024-05-06 03:05:54
Message-ID: 3463946.1714964754@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Oh, it looks like this new build farm animal "skimmer" might be
> reminding us about this issue:
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=skimmer&br=HEAD
> I don't know why it changed,

At this point it seems indisputable that 7d2c7f08d9 is what broke
skimmer, but that didn't go anywhere near WAL-related code, so how?

My best guess is that that changed the amount of WAL generated by
initdb just enough to make the problem reproduce on this animal.
However, why's it *only* happening on this animal? The amount of
WAL we generate isn't all that system-specific.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kashif Zeeshan 2024-05-06 03:53:15 Re: Help update PostgreSQL 13.12 to 13.14
Previous Message jian he 2024-05-06 03:01:30 Re: SQL:2011 application time