| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sync scan & regression tests |
| Date: | 2024-03-24 15:28:12 |
| Message-ID: | 2006500.1711294092@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> 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.
>>>
>>> I'm leaning towards d). The whole test is a little fragile, it will also
>>> fail with a non-default block size, for example. But c) seems like a simple
>>> fix and wouldn't look too out of place in the test.
>> Hm, what do you mean with the last sentence? Oh, is the test you're
>> referencing the relation-extension logic?
> Sorry, I said "c) seems like a simple fix ...", but I meant "d) seems
> like a simple fix ..."
> I meant the attached.
This thread stalled out months ago, but chipmunk is still failing in
HEAD and v16. Can we please have a fix? I'm good with Heikki's
adjustment to the pg_visibility test case.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tristan Partin | 2024-03-24 15:42:53 | Re: make dist using git archive |
| Previous Message | Yasuo Honda | 2024-03-24 14:36:38 | Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions |