Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:53:10PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Not only is that code spectacularly unreadable, but has nobody noticed >> that this commit broke the buildfarm? > > Thanks for reporting the problem. This arose because the new test case > temporarily sets client_min_messages=DEBUG1. The default buildfarm > configuration sets log_statement=all in its postgresql.conf, so the client > gets those log_statement lines. I would fix this as attached, resetting the > optional logging to defaults during the test cases in question. Not > delightful, but that's what we have to work with. I'm just going to remove the test. This is not very future-proof and an ugly pattern if it gets copied to other places. We need to work on a more sensible way for ALTER TABLE to report what it did, but a solution based on what GUCs the build-farm happens to set doesn't seem like it's justified for the narrowness of the case we're testing here. Whether or not we allow this case to work without a rewrite is in some sense arbitrary. There's no real reason it can't be done; rather, we're just exercising restraint to minimize the risk of future bugs. So I don't want to go to great lengths to test it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
- Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs.operator families at 2012-01-26 11:55:36 from Noah Misch
Responses
- Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs.operator families at 2012-01-28 21:25:06 from Noah Misch
pgsql-hackers by date
Next: From: Abhijit Menon-Sen Date: 2012-01-26 13:30:26 Subject: Re: psql NUL record and field separator Previous: From: Kohei KaiGai Date: 2012-01-26 12:27:38 Subject: Re: [v9.2] sepgsql's DROP Permission checks