David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 at 18:28, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Let's wait a bit to see if it fails in HEAD ... but if not, would >> it be reasonable to back-patch the additional debugging output?
> I think REL_16_STABLE has told us that it's not an auto-vacuum issue. > I'm uncertain what a few more failures in master will tell us aside > from if reltuples == 48 is consistent or if that value is going to > fluctuate. > Let's give it a week and see if it fails a few more times. We have another failure today [1] with the same symptom: ab_a2 | 0 | -1 | | 0 | 0 - ab_a2_b1 | 0 | -1 | | 0 | 0 + ab_a2_b1 | 0 | 48 | | 0 | 0 ab_a2_b1_a_idx | 1 | 0 | t | | Different table, same "48" reltuples. But I have to confess that I'd not looked closely enough at the previous failure, because now that I have, this is well out in WTFF territory: how can reltuples be greater than zero when relpages is zero? This can't be a state that autovacuum would have left behind, unless it's really seriously broken. I think we need to be looking for explanations like "memory stomp" or "compiler bug". regards, tom lane [1] https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=parula&dt=2024-03-29%2012%3A46%3A02