Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Still, I don't think this is a reasonable test design. We have > >> absolutely no idea what behaviors are being triggered in the other > >> tests, except that they are unrelated to what those tests think they > >> are testing. > > > I can of course move it to a separate parallel test, but I don't think > > that should be really necessary. > > I've not proven this rigorously, but it seems obvious in hindsight: > what's happening is that when the object_address test drops everything > with DROP CASCADE, other processes are sometimes just starting to execute > the event trigger when the DROP commits. When they go to look up the > trigger function, they don't find it, leading to "cache lookup failed for > function".
Hm, maybe we can drop the event trigger explicitely first, then wait a little bit, then drop the remaining objects with DROP CASCADE? -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
