Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think it's just failure to update an expected-file, but will leave it
> >> to Alvaro.
>
> > I don't understand. It passed make check fine for me on both branches.
> > Will fix in a jiffy.
>
> There are two variant expected file
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think it's just failure to update an expected-file, but will leave it
>> to Alvaro.
> I don't understand. It passed make check fine for me on both branches.
> Will fix in a jiffy.
There are two variant expected files for that module --- did you fix
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> >> Cleanup commit timestamp module activaction, again
>
> > The buildfarm seems to be very unhappy right now, and it looks as if
> > this commit is to blame.
>
> I think it's just failure to
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> Cleanup commit timestamp module activaction, again
> The buildfarm seems to be very unhappy right now, and it looks as if
> this commit is to blame.
I think it's just failure to update an expected-file, but will
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Cleanup commit timestamp module activaction, again
>
> Further tweak commit_ts.c so that on a standby the state is completely
> consistent with what that in the master, rather than behaving
> differently in the cases that the settings differ
