Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2022-04-14 23:56:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, damn. I changed my script that way and it failed on the tenth
>> iteration (versus a couple hundred successful iterations the other
>> way).
> Just to make sure: This is also on wrasse?
Right, gcc211 with a moderately close approximation to wrasse's
build details. Why that shows the problem when we've not seen
it elsewhere remains to be seen.
> What DSM backend do we end up with on solaris? With shared memory stats
> we're using DSM a lot earlier and more commonly than before.
That ... is an interesting point. It seems to be just "posix" though.
>> So somehow this is related to time-since-initdb, not
>> time-since-postmaster-start. Any ideas?
> Perhaps it makes a difference that we start with a "young" database xid
> age wise? We've had bugs around subtracting xids and ending up on some
> special one in the past.
It does seem like it's got to be related to small XID and/or small
LSN values. No clue right now, but more news tomorrow, I hope.
regards, tom lane
