On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 10:33 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I can fix this one the same way as I fixed the first two. That will > > mean that three out of the four tests with DROP ROLE statements whose > > output needed to be changed as part of commit dd299df81 will have had > > their DETAIL output suppressed. It's still possible that the last > > instance of such a change (rowsecurity.out) will have a failure like > > this too. > > At this point I no longer have any faith in the approach of "suppress > DETAIL only where we've actually been burnt". I think we should > either go ahead and suppress DETAIL in all four places, or bite the > bullet and change the DROP ROLE code as I sketched upthread.
All that it will take to fix dependency.sql is to move an existing \set VERBOSITY terse a few lines earlier. I would like to suppress the dependency.sql stability issue right away. I can also suppress the rowsecurity.out output in the same commit. I want to fix the problem on the buildfarm first, unless your well-principled approach won't take very long. Which seems unlikely. You can revert these commits if and when they become unnecessary. > However, I don't really like the fact that we're setting up a booby > trap for all future tests involving DROP ROLE. I think if we leave > it like this, people are going to add new test cases that have > slightly unstable output and are going to learn about it the hard > way, just as we're doing now. When you take the long view of it, > there's definitely something to be said for expending the effort > to make the DROP ROLE results stable. That seems like a good argument to me. > When I was looking at this on Friday, I thought it wouldn't be that > hard to make the results stable, at least up to whatever cutoff we > want to set on how many objects to sort. But per previous discussion, > maybe we don't need an explicit limit? The stringinfo describing the > objects is going to consume a good bit more memory than an ObjectAddress > array in any case, so if we're not going to sweat about OOM for the > message then I'm not sure we need to be paranoid about the sort memory. I agree that it isn't worth worrying about an OOM for the sort here. -- Peter Geoghegan
