At Fri, 05 Mar 2021 13:13:04 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote in > At Thu, 04 Mar 2021 23:02:09 -0500, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in > > Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> writes: > > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 7:32 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > >> Hmmm ... what environment is that? This test script hasn't changed > > >> meaningfully in several years, and we have not seen any real issues > > >> with it up to now. > > > > > Did you see this recent thread? > > > https://postgr.es/m/20210208215206.mqmrnpkaqrdtm...@alap3.anarazel.de > > > > Hadn't paid much attention at the time, but yeah, it looks like Andres > > tripped over some variant of this. > > > > I'd be kind of inclined to remove this test script altogether, on the > > grounds that it's wasting cycles on a function that doesn't really > > do what is claimed (and we should remove the documentation claim, too). > > > > Having said that, it's still true that this test has been stable in > > the buildfarm. Andres explained what he had to perturb to make it > > fail, so I'm still interested in what Horiguchi-san did to break it. > > CONFIGURE = '--enable-debug' '--enable-cassert' '--enable-tap-tests' > '--enable-depend' '--enable-nls' '--with-icu' '--with-openssl' > '--with-libxml' '--with-uuid=e2fs' '--with-tcl' '--with-llvm' > '--prefix=/home/horiguti/bin/pgsql_work' > 'LLVM_CONFIG=/usr/bin/llvm-config-64' 'CC=/usr/lib64/ccache/gcc' > 'CLANG=/usr/lib64/ccache/clang' 'CFLAGS=-O0' '--with-wal-blocksize=16' > > the WAL block size might have affected. I'll recheck without it.
Ok, I don't see the failure. It guess that the WAL records for the last transaction crosses a block boundary with 8kB WAL blocks, but not with 16kB blocks. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
