Thread

Commits

  1. Fix overly generic name in with.sql test.

  2. Clean up duplicate table and function names in regression tests.

  1. Tests "with" and "alter_table" suffer from name clash

    Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> — 2021-12-30T02:12:04Z

    Hi,
    
    With unlucky scheduling you can get a failure like this:
    
    https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=hoverfly&dt=2021-12-22%2010%3A51%3A32
    
    Suggested fix attached.
    
  2. Re: Tests "with" and "alter_table" suffer from name clash

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2021-12-30T02:27:09Z

    Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
    > With unlucky scheduling you can get a failure like this:
    > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=hoverfly&dt=2021-12-22%2010%3A51%3A32
    > Suggested fix attached.
    
    Looks reasonable.  We really should avoid using such common
    names for short-lived tables in any case --- it's an invitation
    to trouble.  So I'd vote for changing the other use of "test", too.
    
    			regards, tom lane
    
    
    
    
  3. Re: Tests "with" and "alter_table" suffer from name clash

    Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> — 2021-12-30T04:25:40Z

    On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 3:27 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
    > Looks reasonable.  We really should avoid using such common
    > names for short-lived tables in any case --- it's an invitation
    > to trouble.  So I'd vote for changing the other use of "test", too.
    
    In fact only REL_10_STABLE had the problem, because commit 2cf8c7aa
    already fixed the other instance in later branches.  I'd entirely
    forgotten that earlier discussion, which apparently didn't quite go
    far enough.   So I only needed to push the with.sql change.  Done.
    
    
    
    
  4. Re: Tests "with" and "alter_table" suffer from name clash

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2021-12-30T04:50:32Z

    Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
    > In fact only REL_10_STABLE had the problem, because commit 2cf8c7aa
    > already fixed the other instance in later branches.  I'd entirely
    > forgotten that earlier discussion, which apparently didn't quite go
    > far enough.   So I only needed to push the with.sql change.  Done.
    
    Hah, I thought this felt familiar.  So the real problem is that
    my backpatch (b15a8c963) only fixed half of the hazard.  Sigh.
    
    			regards, tom lane