Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 16:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think probably the best thing is to change the test case so it has
>> one valid key and one not-valid one, rather than assuming that the
>> same key will always be complained of when there's more than one
>> not-valid one.
> That would probably work. We dealt with a similar problem in
> 2cfb1c6f77734db81b6e74bcae630f93b94f69be, if you want some additional
> inspiration. Not sure why we didn't see this case then.
If it's got anything to do with hashing, platform dependency wouldn't be
a bit surprising. Or they might have tweaked the algorithm some more
since May.
How come you did not back-patch that commit ... are we not supporting
3.3 in branches before 9.2 for some reason?
regards, tom lane
