Hi,
On 2024-03-24 11:28:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> > On 19/09/2023 01:57, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> On 2023-09-18 13:49:24 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>> d) Copy fewer rows to the table in the test. If we copy only 6 rows, for
> >>> example, the table will
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 19/09/2023 01:57, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2023-09-18 13:49:24 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> d) Copy fewer rows to the table in the test. If we copy only 6 rows, for
>>> example, the table will have only two pages, regardless of shared_buffers.
>>>
>>>
On 19/09/2023 01:57, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2023-09-18 13:49:24 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
d) Copy fewer rows to the table in the test. If we copy only 6 rows, for
example, the table will have only two pages, regardless of shared_buffers.
I'm leaning towards d). The whole test is a
Hi,
On 2023-09-18 13:49:24 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 05/09/2023 06:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> > > With shared_buffers='20MB', the tests passed. I'm going to change it
> > > back to 10MB now, so that we continue to cover that case.
> >
> > So chipmunk is
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 05/09/2023 06:16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So chipmunk is getting through the core tests now, but instead it
>> is failing in contrib/pg_visibility [1]:
> I bisected it to this:
> commit 82a4edabd272f70d044faec8cf7fd1eab92d9991 (HEAD)
> Author: Andres Freund
> Date:
On 05/09/2023 06:16, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
With shared_buffers='20MB', the tests passed. I'm going to change it
back to 10MB now, so that we continue to cover that case.
So chipmunk is getting through the core tests now, but instead it
is failing in contrib/pg_visibility
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> With shared_buffers='20MB', the tests passed. I'm going to change it
> back to 10MB now, so that we continue to cover that case.
So chipmunk is getting through the core tests now, but instead it
is failing in contrib/pg_visibility [1]:
diff -U3
On 31/08/2023 02:37, Melanie Plageman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:15 PM David Rowley wrote:
I just looked at v15's code and I agree that the ss_report_location()
would be called even when the scan is finished. It wasn't intentional
that that was changed in v16, so I'm happy for your
On 29/08/2023 13:35, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 07/08/2023 03:55, Tom Lane wrote:
This is possibly explained by the fact that it uses (per its
extra_config)
'shared_buffers = 10MB',
although it's done that for a long time and portals.out hasn't changed
since before
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:15 PM David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 22:35, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Looking the new heapgettup_advance_block() function and the code that it
> > replaced, it's now skipping this ss_report_location() on the last call,
> > when it has reached the end
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 22:35, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Looking the new heapgettup_advance_block() function and the code that it
> replaced, it's now skipping this ss_report_location() on the last call,
> when it has reached the end of the scan:
>
> >
> > /*
> >* Report our new
(noticed this thread just now)
On 07/08/2023 03:55, Tom Lane wrote:
Having said that ... I just noticed that chipmunk, which I'd been
ignoring because it had been having configuration-related failures
ever since it came back to life about three months ago, has gotten
past those problems
Yes,
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 7:21 AM Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>> Two tests are failed because of sync scan - this tests cluster.sql and
>> portals.sql perform seqscan without explicit order by and expect that
>> data will be returned in particular order. But because of sync
On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 7:21 AM Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Two tests are failed because of sync scan - this tests cluster.sql and
> portals.sql perform seqscan without explicit order by and expect that
> data will be returned in particular order. But because of sync scan it
> doesn't happen.
Konstantin Knizhnik writes:
> Is it is ok, that regression tests do not pass with small value of
> shared buffers (for example 1Mb)?
There are quite a few GUC settings with which you can break the
regression tests. I'm not especially bothered by this one.
> More general question - is it
15 matches
Mail list logo
