Re: PGOPTIONS="-fh" make check gets stuck since Postgres 11

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PGOPTIONS="-fh" make check gets stuck since Postgres 11
Date: 2019-07-09 02:22:13
Message-ID: 16529.1562638933@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 2:19 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Given the purposes of this test, I think it'd be reasonable to force
>> both enable_hashjoin = on and enable_mergejoin = off at the very top
>> of the join_hash script, or the corresponding place in join.sql in
>> v11. Thomas, was there a specific reason for forcing enable_mergejoin
>> = off for only some of these tests?

> Based on a suggestion from Andres (if I recall correctly), I wrapped
> each individual test in savepoint/rollback, and then set just the GUCs
> needed to get the plan shape and execution code path I wanted to
> exercise, and I guess I found that I only needed to disable merge
> joins for some of them. The idea was that the individual tests could
> be understood independently.

But per this discussion, they can only be "understood independently"
if you make some assumptions about the prevailing values of the
planner GUCs.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2019-07-09 02:30:51 Re: PGOPTIONS="-fh" make check gets stuck since Postgres 11
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-07-09 02:20:52 Re: PGOPTIONS="-fh" make check gets stuck since Postgres 11