On 2014-06-12 00:38:36 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 03:28:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > >> On 2014-03-27 08:02:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > >>> Buildfarm member prairiedog thinks there's something unreliable about > > >>> commit f01d1ae3a104019d6d68aeff85c4816a275130b3: > > > > > So I had made a notice to recheck on > > > this. > > > http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=prairiedog&br=HEAD > > > indicates there haven't been any further failures... So, for now I > > > assume this was caused by some problem fixed elsewhere. > > > > Hard to say. In any case, I agree we can't make any progress unless we > > see it again. > > The improved test just tripped:
Hrmpf. Just one of these days I was happy thinking it was gone... > http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=prairiedog&dt=2014-06-12%2000%3A17%3A07 Hm. My guess it's that it's just a 'harmless' concurrency issue. The test currently run in concurrency with others: I think what happens is that the table gets dropped in the other relation after the query has acquired the mvcc snapshot (used for the pg_class) test. But why is it triggering on such a 'unusual' system and not on others? That's what worries me a bit. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
