On 2014-03-28 16:41:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 2014-03-27 08:02:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Buildfarm member prairiedog thinks there's something unreliable about > >> commit f01d1ae3a104019d6d68aeff85c4816a275130b3: > > > That's rather odd. It has survived for a couple of months on the other > > buildfarm animals now... Could one of you apply the attached patch > > adding more details to eventual failures? > > Any objection to separating out the have_mappings bit? It wasn't terribly > appropriate before, but it seems really out of place in this formulation.
The patch I sent removed the have_mapping thing entirely? Do you mean it should be there, but as a separate query? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
