Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2021 at 12:34 PM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> One thing that's not clear to me is what happened to the reasons why
>> this feature was reverted in the PG14 cycle?

> 3. A wild goose chase for bugs on Tom Lane's antique 32 bit PPC
> machine. Tom eventually reproduced it with the patches reverted,
> which seemed to exonerate them but didn't leave a good feeling: what
> was happening, and why did the patches hugely increase the likelihood
> of the failure mode? I have no new information on that, but I know
> that several people spent a huge amount of time and effort trying to
> reproduce it on various types of systems, as did I, so despite not
> reaching a conclusion of a bug, this certainly contributed to a
> feeling that the patch had run out of steam for the 14 cycle.

Yeah ... on the one hand, that machine has shown signs of
hard-to-reproduce flakiness, so it's easy to write off the failures
I saw as hardware issues. On the other hand, the flakiness I've
seen has otherwise manifested as kernel crashes, which is nothing
like the consistent test failures I was seeing with the patch.

Andres speculated that maybe we were seeing a kernel bug that
affects consistency of concurrent reads and writes. That could
be an explanation; but it's just evidence-free speculation so far,
so I don't feel real convinced by that idea either.

Anyway, I hope to find time to see if the issue still reproduces
with Thomas' new patch set.

regards, tom lane