On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:18 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> > Yes, so this could be the cause of the problem. I think we need to
> > change the tests added by the patch such that they don't rely on
> > vacuum to remove dead-row versions? Do you or anybody else see any
> > better way to fix this?
>
> To be blunt, this patch needs to be reverted immediately.
Okay, I will do it.
> The failures
> that are showing up are not just "the fsm test is not portable" problems.
> See for example
>
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=mantid&dt=2019-01-28%2005%3A07%3A06
>
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=dromedary&dt=2019-01-28%2003%3A07%3A39
>
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=lapwing&dt=2019-01-28%2003%3A20%3A02
>
> I don't know what the common thread is here, but you don't get to leave
> the buildfarm broken this badly while you figure it out.
>
Sure, but I am wondering why none of this ever shown in local tests,
as we have done quite some testing related to pgbench as well.
Anyway, I think we need figure that out seprately.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com