On Sep 29, 2016 9:31 AM, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I gave this bug another try and let Windows run for some time but I
> > cannot reproduce the original failure even with manual checkpointing
> > and aggressive checkpoint_timeout, while truncating relations heavily
> > with pgbench to enforce the deletion of relfilenodes. To all, do you
> > think that having a large relfilenode file matters to trigger this
> > issue?
> >
> > Could it be possible to get more testing as well? We won't go far as
> > long as we have not checked that the issue gets fixed by the proposed
> > patch in a place where the problem is able to show up.
>
> I still cannot reproduce the original problem, so there is not much I
> can do to validate the patch.. If someone has ways to check that the
> fix works as expected that would be nice. For now I am marking this
> patch as returned with feedback in the CF app until this happens.
I agree with not committing it without testing, but I think returned with
feedback will almost guarantee there won't be any in the future. And it's a
bug we should definitely try to get fixed..
Maybe it's a better choice to bounce it to the next commitfest to keep up
the visibility?
/Magnus
