| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Instability in partition_prune test? |
| Date: | 2018-04-13 14:01:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20180413140123.2nduqvge5fw5zsjw@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley wrote:
> On 13 April 2018 at 14:41, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > I'll just need to go think about how we can make the test stable now.
>
> Thomas and I discussed this a bit off-list.
>
> The attached basically adds:
>
> set max_parallel_workers = 0;
>
> before the Parallel Append tests.
>
> All those tests were intended to do what check that "(never executed)"
> appeared for the correct nodes. They still do that.
Makes sense -- pushed. Thanks David and Thomas for your efforts
tracking this down.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-13 14:05:00 | Re: Instability in partition_prune test? |
| Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2018-04-13 13:43:09 | Re: Postgres stucks in deadlock detection |