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 21:16:37 |
Message-ID: | 20180416211637.fbjlymtysjzoc2ay@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:
> >> Yeah, loss of executor code coverage was what concerned me.
>
> > Here's a proposed patch for this.
>
> Seems reasonable. I'm still uncomfortable with the assumption
> that if we ask for two workers we will get two workers, but
> that's a pre-existing problem in other parallel regression tests.
Yeah, I was looking at that line and wondering. But I think that'd
require a different approach (*if* we see it fail, which I'm not sure we
have), such as suppressing the Workers Launched lines without a plpgsql
function to do it, since it's much more prevalent than this problem.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-16 21:31:10 | Re: Instability in partition_prune test? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-16 21:05:29 | Re: Instability in partition_prune test? |