Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 10:21:56 -0700
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Test instability when pg_dump orders by OID
Message-ID: <20250820172156.be.nmisch@google.com>
References: 
 <CA+TgmoYnAiypU5sYstJ0nCqr+VVubf5wczANg=KqEeOYmdVeAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20250718191702.45.nmisch@google.com>
 <CA+Tgmoa8FumzaUUSnjK0x=6_oXDXggQPpzgPfX-KE=PVrTyamg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20250725022740.30.nmisch@google.com>
 <CA+TgmoZXmAZmB9OZaXTiy-HG2_1d7UiYrFKXf17C_yLfPa5pQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20250804000321.8b.nmisch@google.com>
 <d32aaa8d-df7c-4f94-bcb3-4c85f02bea21@gmail.com>
 <CALdSSPhZyLua3Vz2Ug8VOASbhP41h-7784MT8s9_+90eE06Aaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20250810163659.71.nmisch@google.com>
 <CALdSSPghJyU+8_xGqP7a_Jn12b9OTNxSAnEBvYkescZ_CzmWwg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALdSSPghJyU+8_xGqP7a_Jn12b9OTNxSAnEBvYkescZ_CzmWwg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20250820172156.be.nmisch%40google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:11:15AM +0500, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 at 21:37, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > Thanks.  Given the current state of freeze for tomorrow's release wrap, the
> > decision is less obvious than usual.  I'm seeing these options:
> >
> > 1. Remove the new assertion in v13-v18.
> > 2. Push your proposed fix.
> > 3. Change nothing.  (This would be the choice if one is maximally concerned
> >    about deviating from the freeze and unconcerned about --enable-cassert
> >    builds of releases.)
> >
> > I am inclined to make today's change be (1).  A fresh audit of catalog PRIMARY
> > KEY and UNIQUE constraints didn't find any more missed cases, but (1) still
> > feels like the right level of cautiousness.  If there are no objections in the
> > next 3hr, I'll proceed with (1).
> 
> Hi! I can see we have option (1)  (28e7252 etc). Can we now move
> forward with option (2) for HEAD?

Yep.  It's in my queue.