Message-ID: <5A7BE8E6.200@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 15:06:30 +0900
From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw: perform UPDATE/DELETE .. RETURNING on a join
 directly
References: <5A438A45.2000909@lab.ntt.co.jp> <5A57193A.2080003@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <CA+TgmoYef9czAA1gJeqh4v47Tv=dqOp4EfdU6bV8EYkOdCwvUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <6166.1518044513@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoaxGGZyUAWQMz7c-3V85TV5-w2wmvpOYrLnALi2d9Z-dQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoaxGGZyUAWQMz7c-3V85TV5-w2wmvpOYrLnALi2d9Z-dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
        Rushabh Lathia <rushabh.lathia@gmail.com>,
        Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>,
        Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk

(2018/02/08 10:40), Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>  wrote:
>> The buildfarm's opinion of it is lower than yours.  Just eyeballing
>> the failures, I'd say there was some naivete about the reproducibility
>> of tuple CTIDs across different platforms.  Is there a good reason
>> these test cases need to print CTID?
>
> Uggh, I missed the fact that they were doing that.  It's probably
> actually useful test coverage, but it's not surprising that it isn't
> stable.

That was my purpose, but I agree with the instability.  Thanks again, 
Robert!

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita