| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: | 2018-04-16 20:51:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20180416205133.gcknukjpmwpt6v47@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It seems quite silly to be asking for a parallel plan and then insisting
> >> it not run in parallel.
>
> > Now that you mention it, this probably decreases coverage for the
> > choose_next_subplan_for_worker function.
>
> Yeah, loss of executor code coverage was what concerned me.
Here's a proposed patch for this.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| partprune-test.patch | text/plain | 16.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-16 21:05:29 | Re: Instability in partition_prune test? |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-04-16 19:58:19 | Re: very slow queries when max_parallel_workers_per_gather is higher than zero |