| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| Date: | 2021-10-15 14:46:03 |
| Message-ID: | 122d1f3a-6e83-d2f8-3229-79cf8357136e@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 10/14/21 5:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Yes, that's been puzzling me too. I've just been staring at it again and
>> nothing jumps out. But maybe we can investigate that offline if this
>> test is deemed not worth keeping.
> As Mark says, it'd be interesting to know whether the use of
> background_psql is related, because if it is, we'd want to debug that.
> (I don't really see how it could be related, but maybe I just lack
> sufficient imagination today.)
Yeah. I'm working on getting a cut-down reproducible failure case.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2021-10-15 17:38:36 | BUG #17231: ERROR: tuple concurrently updated |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-15 13:50:05 | Re: SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION command doesn't update status of backend |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-10-15 14:56:27 | Re: Partial aggregates pushdown |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-15 14:07:21 | Re: Unbounded %s in sscanf |