Test BRIN autosummarization
There was no coverage for this code.
Reported-by: Nikolay Shaplov, Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2700647.XEouBYNZic@x200m
https://postgr.es/m/13849.1506114...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Branch
--
REL_10_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/c
Test BRIN autosummarization
There was no coverage for this code.
Reported-by: Nikolay Shaplov, Tom Lane
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2700647.XEouBYNZic@x200m
https://postgr.es/m/13849.1506114...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdi
Fix saving and restoring umask
In two cases, we set a different umask for some piece of code and
restore it afterwards. But if the contained code errors out, the umask
is not restored. So add TRY/CATCH blocks to fix that.
Branch
--
REL9_5_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/p
Fix saving and restoring umask
In two cases, we set a different umask for some piece of code and
restore it afterwards. But if the contained code errors out, the umask
is not restored. So add TRY/CATCH blocks to fix that.
Branch
--
REL9_6_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/p
Fix saving and restoring umask
In two cases, we set a different umask for some piece of code and
restore it afterwards. But if the contained code errors out, the umask
is not restored. So add TRY/CATCH blocks to fix that.
Branch
--
REL9_3_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/p
Fix saving and restoring umask
In two cases, we set a different umask for some piece of code and
restore it afterwards. But if the contained code errors out, the umask
is not restored. So add TRY/CATCH blocks to fix that.
Branch
--
REL9_2_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/p
Fix saving and restoring umask
In two cases, we set a different umask for some piece of code and
restore it afterwards. But if the contained code errors out, the umask
is not restored. So add TRY/CATCH blocks to fix that.
Branch
--
REL9_4_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/p
Fix saving and restoring umask
In two cases, we set a different umask for some piece of code and
restore it afterwards. But if the contained code errors out, the umask
is not restored. So add TRY/CATCH blocks to fix that.
Branch
--
REL_10_STABLE
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/p
On 9/22/17 17:48, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> Fix saving and restoring umask
>> In two cases, we set a different umask for some piece of code and
>> restore it afterwards. But if the contained code errors out, the umask
>> is not restored. So add TRY/CATCH blocks to fix that.
>
Refactor new file permission handling
The file handling functions from fd.c were called with a diverse mix of
notations for the file permissions when they were opening new files.
Almost all files created by the server should have the same permissions
set. So change the API so that e.g. OpenTransi
Ten-second timeout in 013_crash_restart.pl is not enough, let's try 60.
Per buildfarm member topminnow.
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/01c7d3ef85d4b0e1c52cc1a3542864f95f386f76
Modified Files
--
src/test/recovery/t/013_crash_restart.pl |
Remove pgbench "progress" test pending solution of its timing issues.
Buildfarm member skink shows that this is even more flaky than
I thought. There are probably some actual pgbench bugs here
as well as a timing dependency. But we can't have stuff this
unstable in the buildfarm, it obscures oth
Improve memory management in autovacuum.c.
Invoke vacuum(), as well as "work item" processing, in the PortalContext
that do_autovacuum() has manufactured, which will be reset before each
such invocation. This ensures cleanup of any memory leaked by these
operations. It also avoids the rather dan
Hello Tom,
Remove pgbench "progress" test pending solution of its timing issues.
It would have been nicer to simply comment them out...
Buildfarm member skink shows that this is even more flaky than I
thought. There are probably some actual pgbench bugs here as well as a
timing dependency
Hi,
On 2017-09-23 19:57:40 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> According to the trace, the host was so loaded that it could not do anything
> for over two seconds, so that the first output is "progress: 2.6", i.e. the
> 0 thread did not get any significant time for the first 2.6 seconds... of a
> 1 seco
Fabien COELHO writes:
> Globally these test failures reveals pathological testing conditions: the
> inability to execute a simple select over several seconds. It could have
> been OOM or whatever else.
Well, I think it's mostly about valgrind making everything really slow.
Since we have seen so
Fix bogus size calculation in strlist_to_textarray().
It's making an array of Datum, not an array of text *. The mistake
is harmless since those are currently the same size, but it's still
wrong.
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/737639017c87d5a0a466e
... and the very same bug in publicationListToArray().
Sigh.
Branch
--
master
Details
---
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/24541ffd788d56009126fff52b2341ada6c84245
Modified Files
--
src/backend/commands/subscriptioncmds.c | 8 +---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+),
If the test must run even when postgres doesn't, it is a little bit
hard as a starting assumption for a benchmarking tool:-(
I'm unsure what the point of this is. It's not like we discussing
removing pgbench, we're talking about an unreliable test.
My sentence was probably not very clear.
Fabien COELHO writes:
> So this means somehow giving up on coverage, because of one host which can
> fail under very unusual testing conditions once in a while.
You are attacking a straw man. There is no reason whatever to believe
that the problem is confined to one host. We have quite a numbe
Fix pg_basebackup test to original intent
One test case was meant to check that pg_basebackup does not succeed
when a slot is specified with -S but WAL streaming is not selected,
which used to require specifying -X stream. Since -X stream is the
default in PostgreSQL 10, this test case no longer
Fix pg_basebackup test to original intent
One test case was meant to check that pg_basebackup does not succeed
when a slot is specified with -S but WAL streaming is not selected,
which used to require specifying -X stream. Since -X stream is the
default in PostgreSQL 10, this test case no longer
doc: Expand user documentation on SCRAM
Explain more about how the different password authentication methods and
the password_encryption settings relate to each other, give some
upgrading advice, and set a better link from the release notes.
Reviewed-by: Jeff Janes
Branch
--
REL_10_STABLE
doc: Expand user documentation on SCRAM
Explain more about how the different password authentication methods and
the password_encryption settings relate to each other, give some
upgrading advice, and set a better link from the release notes.
Reviewed-by: Jeff Janes
Branch
--
master
Details
You are attacking a straw man.
I thought it was tilting at windmills:-)
In the TAP-test context, you do have quite a bit of freedom to decide
what is a pass and what is a fail. So maybe the path forward is to be
more flexible about the pass conditions for this test.
Hmmm. I'm not sure tha
25 matches
Mail list logo