| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| 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 21:28:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzknz0se8xpJvf0ubsSvnQpBPrVQ34aLind1Wt4+ND4KxA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 2:24 PM Mark Dilger
<mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> None of the "pride of ownership" type, but I would like to see something more about the limitations of background_psql().
I'm not sure what that means for the buildfarm. Are you suggesting
that we leave things as-is pending an investigation on affected BF
animals, or something else?
> Or do you have a different way forward for that?
I don't know enough about this stuff to be able to comment.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-10-14 21:31:20 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-10-14 21:24:33 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-10-14 21:31:20 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-10-14 21:24:33 | Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations |