| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Yasir <yasir(dot)hussain(dot)shah(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Regression failures after changing PostgreSQL blocksize |
| Date: | 2026-02-12 02:49:38 |
| Message-ID: | 131290.1770864578@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 7:19 AM Yasir <yasir(dot)hussain(dot)shah(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> This produced so many regression failures. I'm wondering, are such failures typical/expected when altering the default block size?
> Our experience shows that when changing the block size, most of the regression test differences are expected — they often reflect output variations (like buffer counts, cost estimates, or physical storage details) rather than functional bugs.
> That said, it really needs to be examined case by case.
Indeed. There is relevant documentation here:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/regress-evaluation.html
(Some of that looks a bit out of date, ie differences we don't really
expect to happen anymore. But plan changes and row-ordering changes
are definitely expected if you change any parameter that affects
planner cost estimates.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2026-02-12 03:13:24 | Re: Odd usage of errmsg_internal in bufmgr.c |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2026-02-12 02:49:18 | Re: [PATCH] Add sampling statistics to autoanalyze log output |