Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rktQS-00GCZw-K7 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 22:19:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rktQP-003h5j-7h for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 22:19:45 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rktQO-003h5a-UT for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 22:19:45 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rktQL-004XB7-HU for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 22:19:44 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 42EMJcDc2387222; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:19:38 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Heikki Linnakangas cc: pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: Weird test mixup In-reply-to: <10fd6cdd-c5d9-46fe-9fa1-7e661191309e@iki.fi> References: <10fd6cdd-c5d9-46fe-9fa1-7e661191309e@iki.fi> Comments: In-reply-to Heikki Linnakangas message dated "Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:23:46 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2387220.1710454778.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:19:38 -0400 Message-ID: <2387221.1710454778@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Heikki Linnakangas writes: > Somehow the 'gin-leave-leaf-split-incomplete' injection point was active > in the 'intarray' test. That makes no sense. That injection point is > only used by the test in src/test/modules/gin/. Perhaps that ran at the > same time as the intarray test? But they run in separate instances, with > different data directories. Do they? It'd be fairly easy to explain this if these things were being run in "installcheck" style. I'm not sure about CI, but from memory, the buildfarm does use installcheck for some things. I wonder if it'd be wise to adjust the injection point stuff so that it's active in only the specific database the injection point was activated in. regards, tom lane