Thread
Commits
-
Fix overly generic name in with.sql test.
- 8112bcf0cc60 15.0 landed
- f7d7ac23d192 14.2 landed
- cadd98cd3088 13.6 landed
- d536d0304b78 12.10 landed
- 81b12fb33a5e 11.15 landed
- f0cafd006ec4 10.20 landed
-
Clean up duplicate table and function names in regression tests.
- 2cf8c7aa4855 11.0 cited
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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