Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lkTcT-0007cf-4D for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 22 May 2021 15:32:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lkTcP-0003vn-Qb for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 22 May 2021 15:32:49 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lkTcP-0003ve-IZ for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 22 May 2021 15:32:49 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lkTcN-000783-8G for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 22 May 2021 15:32:49 +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 14MFWhpR264715; Sat, 22 May 2021 11:32:44 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Amit Langote cc: Michael Paquier , Amit Kapila , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Subscription tests fail under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS In-reply-to: <228806.1621689537@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <3382681.1621381328@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3392911.1621395985@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3508426.1621455835@sss.pgh.pa.us> <162691.1621630908@sss.pgh.pa.us> <228806.1621689537@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Sat, 22 May 2021 09:18:57 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <264713.1621697563.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sat, 22 May 2021 11:32:43 -0400 Message-ID: <264714.1621697563@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk I wrote: > Amit Langote writes: >> BTW, I think we'd need to cherry-pick f3b141c4825 (or maybe parts of >> it) into v13 branch for back-patching this. > I already did a fair amount of that yesterday, cf 84f5c2908 et al. > But that does raise the question of how far we need to back-patch this. > I gather that the whole issue might've started with 1375422c, so maybe > we don't really need a back-patch at all? ... wrong. Running v13 branch tip under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS provokes a core dump in 013_partition.pl, so 1375422c is not to blame. Now I'm wondering how far back there's a live issue. regards, tom lane