Re: [HACKERS] Why the buildfarm is all pink

2013-12-11 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2013-12-11 10:07:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Do you remember offhand where the failures are? > No, but they are easy enough to reproduce. Out of 10 runs, I've attached > the one with the most failures and checked that it seems to contain all > the failures from other r

Re: [HACKERS] Why the buildfarm is all pink

2013-12-11 Thread Tom Lane
Kevin Grittner writes: > Kevin Grittner wrote: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> I haven't touched matview.sql here; that seems like a distinct issue. >> I'll fix that. > Done. Thanks. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To

Re: [HACKERS] Why the buildfarm is all pink

2013-12-11 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-12-11 10:07:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2013-12-10 19:55:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> We need a more consistent strategy for this :-( > > > Agreed, although I have no clue how it should look like. As a further > > datapoint I'll add that installcheck already

Re: [HACKERS] Why the buildfarm is all pink

2013-12-11 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2013-12-10 19:55:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> We need a more consistent strategy for this :-( > Agreed, although I have no clue how it should look like. As a further > datapoint I'll add that installcheck already regularly fails in HEAD if > you have a HS standby connec

Re: [HACKERS] Why the buildfarm is all pink

2013-12-11 Thread Kevin Grittner
Kevin Grittner wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > >> I haven't touched matview.sql here; that seems like a distinct >> issue. > > I'll fix that. Done. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql

Re: [HACKERS] Why the buildfarm is all pink

2013-12-11 Thread Kevin Grittner
Tom Lane wrote: > I haven't touched matview.sql here; that seems like a distinct issue. I'll fix that. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscrip

Re: [HACKERS] Why the buildfarm is all pink

2013-12-11 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-12-10 19:55:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I was surprised to see that my back-patches of the recent SubLink > unpleasantness were failing on many of the buildfarm members, but > only in the 9.1 and 9.0 branches. The difficulty appears to be > that the EXPLAIN output for the new test query ch

Re: [HACKERS] Why the buildfarm is all pink

2013-12-10 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Anyway, bottom line is that I think we need to institute, and >> back-patch, some consistent scheme for when to analyze the standard >> tables during the regression tests, so that we don't have hazards >> like this for test

Re: [HACKERS] Why the buildfarm is all pink

2013-12-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > This doesn't make me happy. Aside from the sheer waste of cycles > involved in re-analyzing the entire regression database, this > test runs in parallel with half a dozen others, and it could cause > plan instability in those. Of course, if it d

[HACKERS] Why the buildfarm is all pink

2013-12-10 Thread Tom Lane
I was surprised to see that my back-patches of the recent SubLink unpleasantness were failing on many of the buildfarm members, but only in the 9.1 and 9.0 branches. The difficulty appears to be that the EXPLAIN output for the new test query changes depending on whether or not "tenk1" has been ana