Re: pg_stat_statements: more test coverage

From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_stat_statements: more test coverage
Date: 2023-12-31 09:26:50
Message-ID: CAOBaU_ZJC=Wxtocz3KAiOWKFSqvuNkvb_A86mZccqd3seAODiQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 2:28 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 08:39:47PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Ok, I have committed these two patches.
>
> Please note that the buildfarm has turned red, as in:
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stagxe_log.pl?nm=pipit&dt=2023-12-31%2001%3A12%3A22&stg=misc-check
>
> pg_stat_statements's regression.diffs holds more details:
> SELECT query FROM pg_stat_statements WHERE query LIKE '%t001%' OR query LIKE '%t098%' ORDER BY query;
> query
> --------------------
> - select * from t001
> select * from t098
> -(2 rows)
> +(1 row)

That's surprising. I wanted to see if there was any specific
configuration but I get a 403. I'm wondering if this is only due to
other tests being run concurrently evicting an entry earlier than
planned.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2023-12-31 09:36:22 Re: pg_basebackup has an accidentaly separated help message
Previous Message Paul Jungwirth 2023-12-31 08:51:49 Re: SQL:2011 application time