| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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 01:59:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznEA4EYSdtPTaj_sTpSBvw8EtzxnFAEtEXQK2MYyCNq6A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 6:53 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> That band-aid only addressed the situation of someone having turned
> off synchronous_commit in the first place; which is not the case
> on wrasse or most/all other buildfarm animals. Whatever we're
> dealing with here is something independent of that.
That was the intent, but that in itself doesn't mean that it isn't
something to do with setting hint bits (not the OldestXmin horizon
being held back). I'd really like to know what the removable cutoff
looks like for these VACUUM operations, which is something like
Andres' VACUUM VERBOSE debug patch should tell us.
> > Is there any patch that could plausibly have had that effect, whose
> > commit fits with our timeline for the problems seen on wrasse?
>
> I already enumerated my suspects, back at the top of this thread.
Right, but I thought that the syncronous_commit thing was new
information that made that worth revisiting.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zheng Li | 2022-04-15 02:08:58 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-15 01:53:34 | Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse |