| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Failures with installcheck and low work_mem value in 13~ |
| Date: | 2020-06-19 17:27:09 |
| Message-ID: | 1712089.1592587629@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I don't think the tests can be made not to depend on work_mem, because
> it costing of sort / incremental sort depends on the value. I agree
> setting the work_mem at the beginning of the test script is the right
> solution.
I'm a bit skeptical about changing anything here. There are quite
a large number of GUCs that can affect the regression results, and
it wouldn't be sane to try to force them all to fixed values. For
one thing, that'd be a PITA to maintain, and for another, it's not
infrequently useful to run the tests with nonstandard settings to
see what happens.
Is there a good reason for being concerned about work_mem in particular
and this test script in particular?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-06-19 17:28:56 | Re: Failures with installcheck and low work_mem value in 13~ |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-06-19 17:10:37 | Re: Add A Glossary |