Re: Regression failures after changing PostgreSQL blocksize

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(Some of that looks a bit out of date, ie differences we don't really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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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