From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #17212: pg_amcheck fails on checking temporary relations
In-reply-to: <afb18939-3a80-e4a8-7204-404df363fdf1@dunslane.net>
References: <17212-34dd4a1d6bba98bf@postgresql.org>
 <CAH2-WzkwRUayddmb3uxCadV_y--DHfY+UMmjtOokiAO2xNh5fA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+Tgmoat1M4MAqUQM1H+bkWR=wXmi33bB0YRR=xaFk9ADs5Jeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH2-Wzk3NzXYXsUKWBFuBm6aiXTh-_L2Dm9wPqfFenUvG+VbRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <543F3BF3-EDED-4C52-AF05-623921B6C409@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAH2-WzkXphRHgbaUXqMgb7SBmc_VbwdyWGYqphV6KbOH7stfxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <55A2BFE7-AAAF-4A64-BD3A-5C98EA982267@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAH2-WzniogVqNuWzNVLOKjkd8FBcSry29hN9=wiROUPw92fmGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <07159C9A-40DA-47BF-B2F4-! 203F5AC00890@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAH2-Wzkt-umhXfR1nqy=ZDXMfoN3LDK4W5VtchfWyRAuPWxtnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <40DB088B-C96F-49B2-BC84-BDC8D35C7E97@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAH2-Wzne7L9fX2LdZ9enNZpO2wuqbrsubCw2thH__CC_nZazjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0B7DA7A4-2872-485B-BFDD-BF8E9BB07B26@enterprisedb.com>
 <CAH2-Wz=YnyANaKQDfx9pg0YNPS-LY66CXQrUzED4Rgm
 <726473.1634184950@sss.pgh.pa.us> <b5ec84db-c5af-bfac-fe4!
 f-a704a364f90b@dunslane.net> <903461.1634245763@sss.pgh.pa.us> <afb!
 18939-3a80-e4a8-7204-404df363fdf1@dunslane.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
	message dated "Thu, 14 Oct 2021 17:40:21 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <905704.1634248377.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 17:52:57 -0400
Message-ID: <905705.1634248377@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/905705.1634248377%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Yes, that's been puzzling me too. I've just been staring at it again and
> nothing jumps out. But maybe we can investigate that offline if this
> test is deemed not worth keeping.

As Mark says, it'd be interesting to know whether the use of
background_psql is related, because if it is, we'd want to debug that.
(I don't really see how it could be related, but maybe I just lack
sufficient imagination today.)

Beyond that, ISTM this is blocking all TAP testing on the Windows
machines, which is pretty bad to leave in place for long.

			regards, tom lane