On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 10:34:59PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm good with that answer --- I doubt that this test sequence is
> proving anything that's worth the cycles it takes. If it'd catch
> oversights like failing to add new stats types to the "reset all"
> code path, then I'd be for keeping it; but I don't see how the
> test could notice that.
For now I've applied a patch that removes the whole sequence. I'll
keep an eye on the buildfarm for a few days in case there are more
failures.
--
Michael