Hi, On 2022-03-25 01:38:45 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > Not sure what to do here... I guess we can just change the value we > > overwrite > > the page with and hope to not hit this again? But that feels deeply deeply > > unsatisfying. > > AFAICS, this strategy of whacking a predetermined chunk of the page with > a predetermined value is going to fail 1-out-of-64K times.
Yea. I suspect that the way the modifications and checksumming are done are actually higher chance than 1/64k. But even it actually is 1/64k, it's not great to wait for (#animals * #catalog-changes) to approach a decent percentage of 1/64k. I'm was curious whether there have been similar issues in the past. Querying the buildfarm logs suggests not, at least not in the pg_checksums test. > We have to change the test so that it's guaranteed to produce an invalid > checksum. Inverting just the checksum field, without doing anything else, > would do that ... but that feels pretty unsatisfying too. We really ought to find a way to get to wider checksums :/ Greetings, Andres Freund
