Re: Why is parula failing? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Why is parula failing?
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvqyLF881EvDtXT=ossa0i4ioJBtW2c0Wbouzt5d3HDb5Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why is parula failing?  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Why is parula failing?
Re: Why is parula failing?
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 13:53, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 12:36, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > So yeah, if we could have log_autovacuum_min_duration = 0 perhaps
> > that would yield a clue.
>
> FWIW, I agree with your earlier statement about it looking very much
> like auto-vacuum has run on that table, but equally, if something like
> the pg_index record was damaged we could get the same plan change.
>
> We could also do something like the attached just in case we're
> barking up the wrong tree.

I've not seen any recent failures from Parula that relate to this
issue.  The last one seems to have been about 4 weeks ago.

I'm now wondering if it's time to revert the debugging code added in
1db689715.  Does anyone think differently?

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Adding the extension name to EData / log_line_prefix
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Adding the extension name to EData / log_line_prefix