On 2025-Dec-12, Mihail Nikalayeu wrote: > Hello, Álvaro! > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 10:36 PM Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: > > I just saw a failure in CI for an unrelated patch > > I'll try to dive deeper tomorrow to find a fix, but it feels like we > are doing something wrong here.
Hmm, this is a good point. > But currently we are just trying (not the first time already) to make > sure OUTPUT of the test is EXACTLY equal to some variant. A low-cost option might be to add alternative expected file(s), which matches other variant(s). I think trying to make isolationtester "smart match" the output might be more complicated than is warranted. > I am afraid amount of time needed to stabilize such test (in its > output, not the sense) is not cover potential value of it. Yeah, could be. > Also, I imaging someone changing something unrelated (catalog snapshot > invalidation, for example) and test starts to fail on some rear animal > once a week.... Ughn. Another idea might be to rewrite these tests using BackgroundPsql under the TAP infrastructure. That's quite a bit more tedious to write, but we can be more precise on detecting whether some particular error message was thrown or not. -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "How amazing is that? I call it a night and come back to find that a bug has been identified and patched while I sleep." (Robert Davidson) http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2006-03/msg00378.php
