From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Order dependency in function test |
Date: | 2021-04-08 10:22:22 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEwjNuMypL4-rfWdV7AFv1sBD10yev7vwvabnsH4P-yE_A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 12:22 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 08.04.21 12:04, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Looking at https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=prion&dt=2021-04-08%2009%3A43%3A13
> > which broke with the patch to add pg_wait_backend_termination().
> >
> > AFAICT the change is that the order of rows coming back from "SELECT
> > routine_name, sequence_name FROM
> > information_schema.routine_sequence_usage" has changed. This test was
> > added in f40c6969d0e ("Routine usage information schema tables"),
> >
> > It does not change consistently, as it works fine on my machine and
> > has also passed on other buildfarm animals (including other archs and
> > compilers).
> >
> > My guess is that maybe the query plan is different, ending up with a
> > different order, since there is no explicit ORDER BY in the query.
> >
> > Is there a particular thing we want to check on it that requires it to
> > run without ORDER BY, or should we add one to solve the problem? Or,
> > of course, am I completely misunderstanding it? :)
>
> I added some ORDER BY clauses to fix this.
Thanks!
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2021-04-08 10:23:02 | Re: Order dependency in function test |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-04-08 10:22:06 | Re: Order dependency in function test |