Thread: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Cleanup commit timestamp module activaction, again

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> Cleanup commit timestamp module activaction, again
>
> Further tweak commit_ts.c so that on a standby the state is completely
> consistent with what that in the master, rather than behaving
> differently in the cases that the settings differ.  Now in standby and
> master the module should always be active or inactive in lockstep.
>
> Author: Petr Jelínek, with some further tweaks by Álvaro Herrera.
>
> Backpatch to 9.5, where commit timestamps were introduced.

The buildfarm seems to be very unhappy right now, and it looks as if
this commit is to blame.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>> Cleanup commit timestamp module activaction, again

> The buildfarm seems to be very unhappy right now, and it looks as if
> this commit is to blame.

I think it's just failure to update an expected-file, but will leave it
to Alvaro.
        regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> >> Cleanup commit timestamp module activaction, again
> 
> > The buildfarm seems to be very unhappy right now, and it looks as if
> > this commit is to blame.
> 
> I think it's just failure to update an expected-file, but will leave it
> to Alvaro.

I don't understand.  It passed make check fine for me on both branches.
Will fix in a jiffy.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think it's just failure to update an expected-file, but will leave it
>> to Alvaro.

> I don't understand.  It passed make check fine for me on both branches.
> Will fix in a jiffy.

There are two variant expected files for that module --- did you fix
both?
        regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think it's just failure to update an expected-file, but will leave it
> >> to Alvaro.
> 
> > I don't understand.  It passed make check fine for me on both branches.
> > Will fix in a jiffy.
> 
> There are two variant expected files for that module --- did you fix
> both?

Yeah, this was the problem: make installcheck almost always exercises
the case with the setting disabled, which make check doesn't test.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services