On 2022-05-30 15:54:08 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yeah, I agree that we'd better revert c98763bf for the time being.
> And f9900df on top of that?
Well, f9900df needs to be reverted, because it caused the problem at hand, and
is ontop of c98763bf...
> I was trying to think of ways to get an isolation test out of that,
> but that proves to be sort of tricky as we need to manipulate the HOT
> chains after the validation phase has begun with the snapshot from the
> build phase. It is easy to block before the validation transaction
> starts, like in WaitForLockersMultiple() beforehand, though.
I think it's ok if we have a heuristic test for this kind of thing. It
sometimes can even be good, because it means we'll get different schedulings
over time, hitting "unknown" bugs.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
