Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 3/22/22 18:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now, if our attitude to the OAT hooks is that we are going to
>> sprinkle some at random and whether they are useful is someone
>> else's problem, then maybe these are not interesting concerns.
> So this was a pre-existing problem that the test has exposed? I don't
> think we can just say "you deal with it", and if I understand you right
> you don't think that either.
Yeah, my point exactly: the placement of those hooks needs to be rethought.
I'm guessing what we ought to do is let the cached namespace OID list
get built without interference, and then allow the OAT hook to filter
it when it's read.
> I could make the buildfarm quiet again by resetting NO_INSTALLCHECK
> temporarily.
I was able to reproduce it under "make check" as long as I had
LANG set to one of the troublesome values, so I'm not real sure
that that'll be enough.
regards, tom lane
