On 5/8/21 3:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Anyway, I propose that we ought to sneak this into HEAD, since > it's only touching test code and not anything production-critical. > > The patch is a bit more invasive than I would have liked, because > adding the SQL definition of binary_coercible() to create_function_1 > (where the other regress.c functions are declared) didn't work: > that runs after opr_sanity, and just moving it up to before > opr_sanity causes the latter to complain about some of the functions > in it. So I ended up splitting the create_function_1 test into > create_function_0 and create_function_1. It's annoying from a > parallelism standpoint that create_function_0 runs by itself, but > the two parallel groups ahead of it are already full. Maybe we > should rebalance that by moving a few of those tests to run in > parallel with create_function_0, but I didn't do that here. > > Thoughts?
+1 for doing it now. You could possibly just move "inet macaddr macaddr8 " to the following group and so have room for create_function_0. I just tried that and it seemed happy. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
