Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hcWtI-0002KL-VS for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 15:16:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hcWtH-0002jm-AO for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 15:16:19 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hcWtH-0002je-0H for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 15:16:19 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hcWtE-00070V-Qr; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 15:16:17 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x5GFG4Qg004353; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:16:04 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Tomas Vondra cc: Dean Rasheed , Tomas Vondra , pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org, Fabien COELHO Subject: Re: pgsql: Rework the pg_statistic_ext catalog In-reply-to: <14081.1560693790@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <8833.1560647898@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20156.1560650744@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20190616085651.d2hxuiqlojewed5j@development> <20190616100328.shl2hhuy2pup6ges@development> <20190616112021.2mncnuj26sbsbnzx@development> <14081.1560693790@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Sun, 16 Jun 2019 10:03:10 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4351.1560698164.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:16:04 -0400 Message-ID: <4352.1560698164@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk I wrote: > Tomas Vondra writes: >> OK, it seems the buildfarm is getting green again. I'm not sure why I'm >> seeing the failure in 011_crash_recovery.pl, while the buildfarm does >> not. Perhaps my environment is borked in some way? Not sure. > I see that Coelho's two bleeding-edge-clang animals are reporting that > failure too. Normally I'd just ignore those two; they break pretty > regularly. Maybe you're using an almost-bleeding-edge clang? Oh --- I managed to reproduce that failure locally on RHEL6 (nothing bleeding-edge anywhere), but it went away after make-clean-and-rebuild. I'm suspicious that the underlying cause was failure to recompile something that knows the value of CATALOG_VERSION_NO. This theory is insufficient to explain why Coelho's animals failed, though. Maybe it would, if you also posit a ccache screwup? But it's not obvious from their configurations that they're using ccache at all. regards, tom lane