2012/1/21 Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote:
>>>>> I guess you concerned about that expected/select_views_1.out is
>>>>> patched, not expected/select_views.out.
>>>>> I'm not sure the reason why regression test script tries to make diff
>>>>> between results/select_views and expected/select_views_1.out.
>>>>
>>>> select_views.out and select_views_1.out are alternate expected output
>>>> files. The regression tests pass if the actual output matches either
>>>> one. Thus, you have to patch both.
>>>>
>>> It was new for me. The attached patch updates both of the expected
>>> files, however, I'm not certain whether select_view.out is suitable, or
>>> not, because my results/select_view.out matched with expected/select_view_1.out.
>>
>> Committed. We'll see what the buildfarm thinks.
>
> This passes installcheck initially. Then upon second invocation of
> installcheck, it fails.
>
> It creates the role "alice", and doesn't clean it up. On next
> invocation alice already exists and cases a failure in test
> select_views.
>
Thanks for your pointing out.
The attached patch adds cleaning-up part of object being defined
within this test;
includes user "alice".
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>
