Re: Some other odd buildfarm failures

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> TBH, I think we could have done without this test altogether; but if we're
>> going to have it, a minimum expectation is that it not be hazardous to
>> other tests around it.

> The number of assertion failures in get_object_address without all the
> sanity checks I added in pg_get_object_address was a bit surprising.
> That's the whole reason I decided to add the test. I don't want to
> blindly assume that all cases will work nicely in the future,
> particularly as other object types are added.

I'm surprised then that you didn't prefer the other solution (wrap the
whole test in a single transaction). But we've probably spent more
time on this than it deserves.

regards, tom lane