From: | Hamid Akhtar <hamid(dot)akhtar(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Rethinking opclass member checks and dependency strength |
Date: | 2020-07-29 04:13:19 |
Message-ID: | CANugjhukOKG_7t1OX6LqCOJe-jAk1yzU6U-YTT-9mWZhj7ry5g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 8:43 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Hamid Akhtar <hamid(dot)akhtar(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I've gone through the patch and applied on the master branch, other than
> a few hunks, and whether as suggested upthread, the default case for
> "switch (op->number)" should throw an error or not, I found that bloom
> regression is crashing.
> > -------------
> > test bloom ... FAILED (test process exited with
> exit code 2) 20 ms
>
> Hmm ... I think you must have done something wrong. For me,
> am-check-members-callback-5.patch still applies cleanly (just a few
> small offsets), and it passes that test as well as the rest of
> check-world. The cfbot agrees [1].
>
> Maybe you didn't "make clean" before rebuilding?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> [1]
> https://travis-ci.org/github/postgresql-cfbot/postgresql/builds/712599990
>
I was pretty sure I did make clean before testing the patch, but perhaps I
didn't as re-running it causes all tests to pass.
Sorry for the false alarm. All good with the patch.
--
Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan)
URL : www.highgo.ca
ADDR: 10318 WHALLEY BLVD, Surrey, BC
CELL:+923335449950 EMAIL: mailto:hamid(dot)akhtar(at)highgo(dot)ca
SKYPE: engineeredvirus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-07-29 04:27:07 | Re: [PATCH] Tab completion for VACUUM of partitioned tables |
Previous Message | James Sewell | 2020-07-29 03:00:54 | Re: Threading in BGWorkers (!) |