Re: [HACKERS] tick buildfarm failure

2014-09-23 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > To be a bit more clear- why is it safe to change the contents if the > > equal() function returns 'false'? I'm guessing the answer is > > "locking"- whereby such a change would imply a lock was acquired on > > the relation

Re: [HACKERS] tick buildfarm failure

2014-09-23 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost writes: > To be a bit more clear- why is it safe to change the contents if the > equal() function returns 'false'? I'm guessing the answer is > "locking"- whereby such a change would imply a lock was acquired on > the relation by another backend, which shouldn't be possible

[HACKERS] tick buildfarm failure

2014-09-22 Thread Stephen Frost
All, I've been keeping an eye on tick as it failed a day-or-so ago and it looks to be related to RLS. Using a local CLFAGS="-DCLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS -DRANDOMIZE_ALLOCATED_MEMORY" build, I was able to see the regression tests failing in check_role_for_policy() due to a pretty clear reset o