On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:18 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes: > > Yes, so this could be the cause of the problem. I think we need to > > change the tests added by the patch such that they don't rely on > > vacuum to remove dead-row versions? Do you or anybody else see any > > better way to fix this? > > To be blunt, this patch needs to be reverted immediately.
Okay, I will do it. > The failures > that are showing up are not just "the fsm test is not portable" problems. > See for example > > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=mantid&dt=2019-01-28%2005%3A07%3A06 > > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=dromedary&dt=2019-01-28%2003%3A07%3A39 > > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=lapwing&dt=2019-01-28%2003%3A20%3A02 > > I don't know what the common thread is here, but you don't get to leave > the buildfarm broken this badly while you figure it out. > Sure, but I am wondering why none of this ever shown in local tests, as we have done quite some testing related to pgbench as well. Anyway, I think we need figure that out seprately. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
