On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 3:34 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Nathan Bossart <[email protected]> writes: > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 12:06:02PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> It's not clear to me that it's worth running this to ground in any > >> more detail than that. The behavior is not wrong; it's the test's > >> fault to assume that these rows will be returned in a deterministic > >> order. So I think the right fix is to adjust the test query, > >> along the lines of > >> > >> -UPDATE ft2 SET c3 = 'bar' WHERE postgres_fdw_abs(c1) > 2000 RETURNING *; > >> +WITH cte AS ( > >> + UPDATE ft2 SET c3 = 'bar' WHERE postgres_fdw_abs(c1) > 2000 RETURNING * > >> +) SELECT * FROM cte ORDER BY c1; > > > +1. I faintly recall looking into this a while ago and, for some reason, I > > was worried that this would become a game of Whac-A-Mole, so apparently I > > didn't follow through. But fixing this query is still an improvement over > > the status quo. > > Yeah, it's certainly fair to wonder where else we have > even-lower-probability test interactions. But I don't think > getting rid of the interaction is realistic, especially given > Alexander's results (which I confess to having forgotten about) > that show that autovacuum is involved in this somehow despite > being disabled on this particular table. So the answer has to > be to make the test case more robust against such things.
+1 for that. I noticed this problem because of Alexander's report, but I completely forgot about it... Thanks! Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
