On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 11:24:46AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Corey (added in CC.), has noticed that the issue fixed by c3315a7 in
> 16~ for advisory locks is not complicated to reach, leading to
> failures in some of our automated internal stuff. A cherry-pick of
> c3315a7 works cleanly acro
On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 01:52:46PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> For the archives' sake: this has been applied as of 6a20b04 and
> c3315a7.
Corey (added in CC.), has noticed that the issue fixed by c3315a7 in
16~ for advisory locks is not complicated to reach, leading to
failures in some of our
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 11:35:53AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-10-04 17:05:40 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I am still studying a lot of this area, but it seems like all the
>> spots requiring a custom configuration (aka NO_INSTALLCHECK) are
>> covered. --setup running is working here
Hi,
On 2022-10-05 08:16:37 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 04.10.22 01:41, Andres Freund wrote:
> > BTW, shouldn't src/test/modules/unsafe_tests use the PG_TEST_EXTRA mechanism
> > somehow? Seems not great to run it as part of installcheck-world, if we
> > don't
> > want to run it as part of
On 04.10.22 01:41, Andres Freund wrote:
BTW, shouldn't src/test/modules/unsafe_tests use the PG_TEST_EXTRA mechanism
somehow? Seems not great to run it as part of installcheck-world, if we don't
want to run it as part of installcheck.
I think there are different levels and kinds of unsafeness.
Hi,
On 2022-10-04 17:05:40 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 04:41:11PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > There's a few further roles that seem to pose some danger goign forward:
>
> I have never seen that myself, but 0001 is a nice cleanup.
> generated.sql includes a user nam
On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 04:41:11PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> There's a few further roles that seem to pose some danger goign forward:
I have never seen that myself, but 0001 is a nice cleanup.
generated.sql includes a user named "regress_user11". Perhaps that's
worth renaming while on it?
>
