On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:02:25AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > If you back out that patch, does the problem you can reproduce with > archive_command go away?
That's the first thing I did after seeing the failure, and I saw nothing after 2~3 hours of pgbench :) The second thing I did was to revert back to HEAD with more logging in the area, but I was not able to see my error again. Perhaps I just need to put more load, there are still too many guesses and not enough facts. > I agree with your analysis in general. It certainly seems to hit right > in the center of the problem scope. > > Maybe hardlinks on Windows has yet another "weird behaviour" vs what > we're used to from Unix. Yeah, I'd like to think that this is a rational explanation, and that's why I was just focusing on reproducing this issue rather reliably as a first step. > It would definitely be more useful if we could figure out *when* this > happens. But failing that, I wonder if we could find a way to provide > a build with this patch backed out for the bug reporters to test out, > given they all seem to have it fairly well reproducible. (But I am > assuming are unlikely to be able to create their own builds easily, > given the complexity of doing so on Windows). Given that this is a > pretty isolated change, it should hopefully be easy enough to back out > for testing. There is a large pool of bug reporters, hopefully one of them may be able to help.. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
