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 1owyhL-0001T0-12 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 04:46:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1owyhI-0002Ec-Nx for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 04:46:20 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1owyhI-0002ET-Ei for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 04:46:20 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1owyhD-0007wf-EC for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 04:46:16 +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 2AL4kDko3044434; Sun, 20 Nov 2022 23:46:14 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Geoghegan cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Unstable regression test for contrib/pageinspect In-reply-to: References: <2892135.1668976646@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan message dated "Sun, 20 Nov 2022 13:09:03 -0800" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3044432.1669005973.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 23:46:13 -0500 Message-ID: <3044433.1669005973@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Peter Geoghegan writes: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 12:37 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> The core reloptions.sql and vacuum.sql tests are two places that are >> also using this option, but they are applying it to temp tables, >> which I think makes it safe (and the lack of failures, seeing that >> they run within parallel test groups, reinforces that). Can we apply >> that idea in pageinspect? > I believe so. The temp table horizons guarantee isn't all that old, so > the tests may well have been written before it was possible. Ah, right, I see that that only dates back to v14 (cf a7212be8b). So we can fix pageinspect's issue by making that table be temp, but only as far back as v14. That's probably good enough in terms of reducing the buildfarm noise level, seeing that mamba has only reported this failure on HEAD so far. I'd be tempted to propose back-patching a7212be8b, but there would be ABI-stability issues, and it's probably not worth dealing with that. >> contrib/amcheck and contrib/pg_visibility are also using >> DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING, so I wonder if they have similar hazards. > I think that most use of DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING by the regression tests > just isn't necessary. Apparently not -- see followup discussion with Mark Dilger. regards, tom lane