On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 2013-07-03 13:29:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I think that's a killer blow for this particular patch. I'm going to
>>> set this to rejected in the CF app.
>
>> Can't we use a alternative expected file for those?
>
> Alternative expected files are a PITA to maintain, at least for
> committers who don't have a platform that can reproduce the alternative
> behavior. If this test were of somewhat higher value I'd be in favor of
> fixing it that way, but given that it's been seriously constrained by
> the portability issues that were already considered, I'm not sure it's
> worth our trouble. (There's also no very strong reason to believe that
> we found out all the remaining portability issues. Maybe we should have
> left it in there for a day, just to see if the buildfarm would show any
> other symptoms besides this one.)
I agree. I think it'd be a good idea to get the buildfarm to run the
existing collate.utf8.linux test regularly on platforms where it
passes, but this particular approach is valuable mostly because
(supposedly) it was going to work everywhere. However, it doesn't.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company