Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ev7E0-0006Tp-FX for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:05:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ev7Dy-0000Ni-2c for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:05:42 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ev7Dx-0000NY-Kb for pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:05:41 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ev7Du-00076K-Ft for pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:05:39 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w2BK5US0013355; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 16:05:31 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Magnus Hagander cc: Peter Eisentraut , PostgreSQL WWW Subject: Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org In-reply-to: References: <30022.1520642188@sss.pgh.pa.us> <30195.1520790475@sss.pgh.pa.us> <30669.1520791101@sss.pgh.pa.us> <31446.1520791925@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1594.1520795000@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2633.1520796277@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Magnus Hagander message dated "Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:56:45 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <13353.1520798730.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 16:05:30 -0400 Message-ID: <13354.1520798730@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Magnus Hagander writes: > Hmm. So it works for you on exactly the same version that the server runs. > That's interesting. Is there something wrong in how we run it? I wonder if > its broken by ccache. What we have is: It might be worth blowing away ccache's cache just to see if it's cached anything bogus. regards, tom lane