On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 9:47 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Yeah ... on the one hand, that machine has shown signs of > hard-to-reproduce flakiness, so it's easy to write off the failures > I saw as hardware issues. On the other hand, the flakiness I've > seen has otherwise manifested as kernel crashes, which is nothing > like the consistent test failures I was seeing with the patch. > > Andres speculated that maybe we were seeing a kernel bug that > affects consistency of concurrent reads and writes. That could > be an explanation; but it's just evidence-free speculation so far, > so I don't feel real convinced by that idea either. > > Anyway, I hope to find time to see if the issue still reproduces > with Thomas' new patch set.
Honestly, all the reasons that Thomas articulated for the revert seem relatively unimpressive from my point of view. Perhaps they are sufficient justification for a revert so near to the end of the development cycle, but that's just an argument for committing things a little sooner so we have time to work out the kinks. This kind of work is too valuable to get hung up for a year or three because of a couple of minor preexisting bugs and/or preexisting maybe-bugs. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
