Re: Instability in partition_prune test?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?