From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 336712D01A for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:00:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id esAxpGjyEZvI for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:00:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpng3.m.smailru.net (smtpng3.m.smailru.net [94.100.177.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id E9A2027A59 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:00:53 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] sql: hold in stat tables space/index id instead of name From: "n.pettik" In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 18:00:50 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <73C65C49-8FB1-4331-B096-6865F9145730@tarantool.org> References: <1f1960f842e9443511b4bf2712a0b79bd7fb0764.1535711802.git.imeevma@gmail.com> <0bbf0c18-9d9b-4849-5a01-24729ab08468@tarantool.org> <70A5C3C7-8069-4FF0-A653-46B3B82C9716@tarantool.org> <1538498570.8155792@f528.i.mail.ru> <16CEE3B0-B6FC-4BE0-B381-704AF1794585@tarantool.org> Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org Cc: Imeev Mergen , Kirill Yukhin >> Actually, this diff doesn=E2=80=99t look like fix of that failed = test. >> I guess it is simply flaky, so this time you get lucky and it is = passed. >> Did you checked that test-trace from Travis fails on fresh 2.0 as = well? >> Did you manage to understand the reason of failure? Otherwise there = is >> no guarantee that you patch is innocent in this situation. >> Without any investigation I can give my approval on this patch. >>=20 > I was able to reproduce this failure on current 2.0: > https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/3737 >=20 > I think my patch do not affect this test in the way it showed in > error. Ok, now that's what I'm talking about. LGTM.