Re: [HACKERS] Cause of occasional buildfarm failures in sequence test

Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 13:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So unless we want to just live with this test failing occasionally,
>> it seems we have two choices: redesign the behavior of nextval()
>> to be insensitive to checkpoint timing, or provide an alternate
>> regression "expected" file that matches the result with log_cnt = 31.
>> I favor the second answer --- I don't want to touch the nextval
>> logic, which has been stable for over six years.

> Maybe you get consistent result by just changing the test thus:

> checkpoint;
> create sequence foo;
> select nextval('foo');
> select nextval('foo');
> select * from foo;

Actually I think we'd need to put the checkpoint after the create,
but yeah we could do that. Or we could leave log_cnt out of the
set of columns displayed. I don't really favor either of those
answers though. They amount to avoiding testing of some code
paths ...

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers