| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SKIP_LOCKED test causes random buildfarm failures |
| Date: | 2019-11-15 01:19:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20191115011920.GA2614@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 03:20:09PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we're going to keep them in vacuum.sql, we should use the
> client_min_messages fix there, as that's a full solution not just
> reducing the window. But I don't agree that these tests are worth
> the cycles, given the coverage elsewhere. The probability of breaking
> this option is just not high enough to justify core-regression-test
> coverage.
I would rather keep the solution with client_min_messages, and the
tests in vacuum.sql to keep those checks for the grammar parsing. So
this basically brings us back to use the patch I proposed here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20191107013942.GA1768@paquier.xyz
Any objections?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-11-15 01:34:49 | Re: [PATCH] Do not use StdRdOptions in Access Methods |
| Previous Message | imai.yoshikazu@fujitsu.com | 2019-11-15 01:00:08 | RE: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store) |