From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
Date: | 2021-10-14 21:24:33 |
Message-ID: | BBE6CE62-1960-4A0D-89EB-73EF773FB802@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
> On Oct 14, 2021, at 2:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> I agree. I can go remove the whole file now, and will.
>
> Mark: Any objections?
None of the "pride of ownership" type, but I would like to see something more about the limitations of background_psql(). It's the closest thing we have to being able to run things in parallel from TAP tests. There's no isolationtester equivalent, and PostgresNode doesn't allow you to fork() in tests without hacking PostgresNodes END{} block. So if we don't debug this, we never get any further towards parallel testing from perl. Or do you have a different way forward for that?
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-14 21:28:10 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-14 21:21:47 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-14 21:28:10 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-10-14 21:21:47 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |