| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: A failure in prepared_xacts test |
| Date: | 2024-04-30 01:48:13 |
| Message-ID: | 1540702.1714441693@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> +1. I'm kind of worried that the expansion of parallelization could
> lead to more instances of instability. Alexander mentioned one such
> case at [1]. I haven't looked into it though.
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cbf0156f-5aa1-91db-5802-82435dda03e6%40gmail.com
The mechanism there is pretty obvious: a plancache flush happened
at just the wrong (right?) time and caused the output to change,
as indeed the comment acknowledges:
-- currently, this fails due to cached plan for "r.f1 + 1" expression
-- (but if debug_discard_caches is on, it will succeed)
I wonder if we shouldn't just remove that test case as being
too unstable -- especially since it's not proving much anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2024-04-30 02:18:14 | Re: Fix parallel vacuum buffer usage reporting |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2024-04-30 00:54:47 | Re: A failure in prepared_xacts test |