Hi,
On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 09:16:19AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 05:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> > Yes, I wrote exactly about that upthread and referenced my previous
> > investigation. But what I'm observing now, is that the failure probability
> > greatly increased with c161ab74f, so something really changed in the test
> > behaviour. (I need a couple of days to investigate this.)
>
> As far as I've cross-checked the logs between successful and failed
> runs on skink and my own machines (not reproduced it locally
> unfortunately), I did not notice a correlation with autovacuum running
> while VACUUM (with or without FULL) is executed on the catalogs.
If one is able to reproduce, would it be possible to change the test and launch
the vacuum in verbose mode? That way, we could see if this is somehow due to [1]
(means something holding global xmin).
BTW, I think we should resume working on [1] and having it fixed in all the cases.
[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d40d015f-03a4-1cf2-6c1f-2b9aca860762%40gmail.com
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
