09.04.2024 21:59, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> But on dad1539ae I got no failures for 3 runs (the same is on
>> REL_16_STABLE with a slightly modified lazy_scan_prune patch).
> I'm having trouble understanding what this means exactly -- are you
> talking about REL_16_STABLE, or about dad1539ae, or both, or what? At
> any rate, it's really important here that we understand whether we
> still have a bug here, and if so, in which releases and with what test
> case. I wasn't aware of dad1539ae but that certainly seems like it
> might've made a big difference, if not fixing the problem entirely
> then at least making it a lot less likely. And I think it's possible
> that some of the related freezing+pruning commits on master might have
> removed the problem altogether, but that needs to be tested.
I was talking about both — dad1539ae eliminated the bug (judging from the
repro) on REL_14_STABLE, and I suppose that 18b87b201 did the same for
REL_15_STABLE/REL_16_STABLE...
(On 18b87b201~1 I've got (twice):
TRAP: FailedAssertion("HeapTupleHeaderIsHeapOnly(htup)", File: "pruneheap.c", Line: 964, PID: 1854895)
I can double-check exactly 18b87b201 with the repro, if it makes sense.)
Best regards,
Alexander
