Re: New Object Access Type hooks

On 3/22/22 20:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 3/22/22 18:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Now, if our attitude to the OAT hooks is that we are going to
>>> sprinkle some at random and whether they are useful is someone
>>> else's problem, then maybe these are not interesting concerns.
>> So this was a pre-existing problem that the test has exposed? I don't
>> think we can just say "you deal with it", and if I understand you right
>> you don't think that either.
> Yeah, my point exactly: the placement of those hooks needs to be rethought.
> I'm guessing what we ought to do is let the cached namespace OID list
> get built without interference, and then allow the OAT hook to filter
> it when it's read.
>
>> I could make the buildfarm quiet again by resetting NO_INSTALLCHECK
>> temporarily.
> I was able to reproduce it under "make check" as long as I had
> LANG set to one of the troublesome values, so I'm not real sure
> that that'll be enough.
>
>

The buildfarm only runs installcheck under different locales/encodings.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com