Re: Broken defenses against dropping a partitioning column

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Manuel Rigger <rigger(dot)manuel(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Broken defenses against dropping a partitioning column
Date: 2019-07-22 21:17:15
Message-ID: 19063.1563830235@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2019-Jul-22, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I nearly missed the need for that because of all the noise that
>> check-world emits in pre-v12 branches. We'd discussed back-patching
>> eb9812f27 at the time, and I think now it's tested enough that doing
>> so is low risk (or at least, lower risk than the risk of not seeing
>> a failure). So I think I'll go do that now.

> I'd like that, as it bites me too, thanks.

Done. The approach "make check-world >/dev/null" now emits the
same amount of noise on all branches, ie just

NOTICE: database "regression" does not exist, skipping

The amount of parallelism you can apply is still pretty
branch-dependent, unfortunately.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-07-22 22:08:32 Re: initdb recommendations
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2019-07-22 20:56:15 Re: make libpq documentation navigable between functions