Andres Freund <[email protected]> writes:
> On 2016-09-12 21:25:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, lapwing says this can't run in parallel with "misc" either :-(
> Gah. That's probably why I had originally had it running in the rules
> group. But isn't that user_relns() test just a bad idea independent of
> this failure? I mean what's the benefit of returning all relations
> there, besides causing regression test churn?
It looks like making your tables temp would work around it ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-committers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-committers
