Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2021-05-14 16:53:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> An idea I'd been toying with was to make invals probabilistic, that is >> there would be X% chance of an inval being forced at any particular >> opportunity. Then you could dial X up or down to make a tradeoff >> between speed and the extent of coverage you get from a single run. >> (Over time, you could expect pretty complete coverage even with X >> not very close to 1, I think.)
> That'd make sense, I've been wondering about something similar. But I'm > a bit worried about that making it harder to reproduce problems > reliably? Once you know or suspect a problem, you dial X up to 1 and wait. regards, tom lane