| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Weird test mixup |
| Date: | 2024-03-14 22:53:57 |
| Message-ID: | ZfOABU4ahF2QZQ6N@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 06:19:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Do they? It'd be fairly easy to explain this if these things were
> being run in "installcheck" style. I'm not sure about CI, but from
> memory, the buildfarm does use installcheck for some things.
>
> I wonder if it'd be wise to adjust the injection point stuff so that
> it's active in only the specific database the injection point was
> activated in.
It can be made optional by extending InjectionPointAttach() to
specify a database OID or a database name. Note that
041_checkpoint_at_promote.pl wants an injection point to run in the
checkpointer, where we don't have a database requirement.
Or we could just disable runningcheck because of the concurrency
requirement in this test. The test would still be able to run, just
less times.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2024-03-14 22:58:09 | Re: pg16: XX000: could not find pathkey item to sort |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-03-14 22:44:54 | Re: Weird test mixup |