On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 7:12 AM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 07, 2022 at 03:18:52PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > I'd bet it's about WAL prefetching, not the revert, and the bisect was a > > bit incorrect, because the commits are close and the failures happen to > > be rare. (Presumably you first did the bisect and then wrote the patch > > that reproduces this, right?) > > No. I wrote the patch, then used the patch to drive the bisect. With ten > iterations, commit 2c7ea57 passes 0/10, while 2c7ea57^ passes 10/10. I've now > tried recovery_prefetch=off. With that, the test passes 10/10 at 2c7ea57. > Given your observation of a failure at 5dc0418fab2, I agree with your > conclusion. Whatever the role of 2c7ea57 in exposing the failure on my > machine, a root cause in WAL prefetching looks more likely. > > > Adding Thomas Munro to the thread, he's the WAL prefetching expert ;-)
Thanks for the repro patch and bisection work. Looking...
