From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Joe Conway <joe(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: New Object Access Type hooks |
Date: | 2022-03-22 16:48:24 |
Message-ID: | 74B3B4DC-9909-40BB-B1DD-B4E0BA90765D@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Mar 22, 2022, at 9:33 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 3/22/22 11:26, Mark Dilger wrote:
>>> culicidae is complaining:
>>> 2022-03-22 14:53:27.198 UTC [2167008][not initialized][:0] FATAL: test_oat_hooks must be loaded via shared_preload_libraries
>
>> That seems quite weird. I'm not sure how it's getting loaded at all if
>> not via shared_preload_libraries
>
> After checking culicidae's config, I've duplicated this failure
> by building with EXEC_BACKEND defined. So I'd opine that there
> is something broken about the method test_oat_hooks uses to
> decide if it was loaded via shared_preload_libraries or not.
> (Note that the failures appear to be coming out of auxiliary
> processes such as the checkpointer.)
>
> As a quick-n-dirty fix to avoid reverting the entire test module,
> perhaps just delete this error check for now.
Ok, done as you suggest:
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-0001-Fix-buildfarm-test-failures-in-test_oat_hooks.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nikolay Shaplov | 2022-03-22 16:56:46 | Re: [PATCH] New [relation] option engine |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-03-22 16:33:49 | Re: New Object Access Type hooks |