Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024, 21:21 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> While we're piling on, has anyone noticed that *non* Windows buildfarm
>> animals are also failing this test pretty frequently?
> Yes. Fixes are here (see the ~10 emails above in the thread for details):
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAGECzQQO8Cn2Rw45xUYmvzXeSSsst7-bcruuzUfMbGQc3ueSdw@mail.gmail.com
Hmm. I'm not convinced that 0001 is an actual *fix*, but it should
at least reduce the frequency of occurrence a lot, which'd help.
I don't want to move the test case to where you propose, because
that's basically not sensible. But can't we avoid remote estimates
by just cross-joining ft1 to itself, and not using the tables for
which remote estimate is enabled?
I think 0002 is probably outright wrong, or at least the change to
disable_statement_timeout is. Once we get to that, we don't want
to throw a timeout error any more, even if an interrupt was received
just before it.
regards, tom lane
