Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: cvs HEAD regression

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: "Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: cvs HEAD regression
Date: 2004-03-30 22:58:15
Message-ID: 23029.1080687495@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> I've been seeing 2 regression failures (diff attached) for the past 
> couple of days. Both appear to be ordering related.

Yeah, I'm getting that too.  It seems to be a side effect of my "fuzzy
cost comparison" patch.  I've been trying to figure out why I did not
notice it before committing.  I don't normally make commits without
checking the regression results --- did I miss a step, or is there
something else involved?  Is there anyone who is using CVS from the last
day or so and does *not* see these diffs?

Anyway, the new choices of plans appear to be reasonable AFAICT,
so I will probably end up just changing the regression expected
outputs.  In the select_views case, for instance, it is now preferring
a plan with cost 1.05 .. 709.74-plus-epsilon over one with cost
132.24 .. 709.74 (the total costs are now considered equal so it looks
to the startup cost as tiebreaker).  Seems like a win to me.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-03-31 01:06:25
Subject: Re: psql \d option list overloaded
Previous:From: kkim3Date: 2004-03-30 22:15:29
Subject: Re: Transaction question

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group