From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Test instability when pg_dump orders by OID |
Date: | 2025-08-20 17:21:56 |
Message-ID: | 20250820172156.be.nmisch@google.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:11:15AM +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 at 21:37, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > Thanks. Given the current state of freeze for tomorrow's release wrap, the
> > decision is less obvious than usual. I'm seeing these options:
> >
> > 1. Remove the new assertion in v13-v18.
> > 2. Push your proposed fix.
> > 3. Change nothing. (This would be the choice if one is maximally concerned
> > about deviating from the freeze and unconcerned about --enable-cassert
> > builds of releases.)
> >
> > I am inclined to make today's change be (1). A fresh audit of catalog PRIMARY
> > KEY and UNIQUE constraints didn't find any more missed cases, but (1) still
> > feels like the right level of cautiousness. If there are no objections in the
> > next 3hr, I'll proceed with (1).
>
> Hi! I can see we have option (1) (28e7252 etc). Can we now move
> forward with option (2) for HEAD?
Yep. It's in my queue.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-08-20 17:29:28 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-08-20 17:07:30 | Re: Organize working memory under per-PlanState context |