On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:50:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Alternatively, we could do something like you suggest but adjust the
second join so that it suppresses only rows in which mapped_oid is null
*and* there's no longer a matching OID in pg_class. That would provide
additional confidence
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:50:44PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Alternatively, we could do something like you suggest but adjust the
second join so that it suppresses only rows in which mapped_oid is null
*and* there's no longer a matching OID in pg_class. That
On 2014-06-12 00:38:36 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 03:28:41PM -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
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-06-12 00:38:36 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=prairiedogdt=2014-06-12%2000%3A17%3A07
Hm. My guess it's that it's just a 'harmless' concurrency issue. The
test currently run in concurrency
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 02:44:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-06-12 00:38:36 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=prairiedogdt=2014-06-12%2000%3A17%3A07
Hm. My guess it's that it's just a
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 02:44:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-06-12 00:38:36 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=prairiedogdt=2014-06-12%2000%3A17%3A07
Hm. My
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 03:28:41PM -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:
So I had made a
Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com writes:
The improved test just tripped:
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=prairiedogdt=2014-06-12%2000%3A17%3A07
Ugh. If the MTBF is circa three months, how will we catch this before
we're dead?
A quick look around the machine's buildfarm
On 2014-03-28 21:36:11 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2014-03-27 08:02:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Buildfarm member prairiedog thinks there's something unreliable about
commit f01d1ae3a104019d6d68aeff85c4816a275130b3:
***
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:
So I had made a notice to recheck on
this.
Hi,
On 2014-03-27 08:02:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Buildfarm member prairiedog thinks there's something unreliable about
commit f01d1ae3a104019d6d68aeff85c4816a275130b3:
***
/Users/buildfarm/bf-data/HEAD/pgsql.13462/src/test/regress/expected/alter_table.out
Thu Mar 27 04:12:40 2014
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
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
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-03-28 16:41:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
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
On 2014-03-28 16:45:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On 2014-03-28 16:41:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
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.
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I don't think it's necessary. As far as I understand LATERAL, a join to
a function returning NULL will still return the row. So, the test now
would only test whether there are rows in pg_class which seems a bit
pointless.
Yeah, after looking closer
Buildfarm member prairiedog thinks there's something unreliable about
commit f01d1ae3a104019d6d68aeff85c4816a275130b3:
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=prairiedogdt=2014-03-27%2008%3A12%3A11
== pgsql.13462/src/test/regress/regression.diffs
17 matches
Mail list logo
