Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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