On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:29 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 10:18 AM John Naylor <john.nay...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:17 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This one seems to be FSM test portability issue (due to different page > > > contents, maybe). Looking into it, John, see if you are around and > > > have some thoughts on it. > > > > Maybe we can use the same plpgsql loop as fsm.sql that exits after 1 > > tuple has inserted into the 5th page. > > > > Yeah that can also work, but we still need to be careful about the > alignment of that one tuple, otherwise, there will could be different > free space on the fifth page. The probably easier way could be to use > an even number of integers in the table say(int, int). Anyway, for > now, I have avoided the dependency on FSM contents without losing on > coverage of test. I have pushed my latest suggestion in the previous > email. >
The change seems to have worked. All the buildfarm machines that were showing the failure are passed now. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
