From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Regression test failure in regression test temp.sql |
Date: | 2019-08-09 04:34:56 |
Message-ID: | 20190809043456.GH3194@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 10:17:25AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Not objecting to the patch, exactly, just feeling like there's
> more here than meets the eye. Not quite sure if it's worth
> investigating closer, or what we'd even need to do to do so.
Yes, something's weird here. I'd think that the index only scan
ensures a proper ordering in this case, so it could be possible that a
different plan got selected here? That would mean that the plan
selected would not be an index-only scan or an index scan. So perhaps
that was a bitmap scan?
> BTW, I realize from looking at the plan that LIKE is interpreting the
> underscores as wildcards. Maybe it's worth s/_/\_/ while you're
Right. Looking around there are much more tests which have the same
problem. This could become a problem if other tests running in
parallel use relation names with the same pattern, which is not a
issue as of HEAD, so I'd rather just back-patch the ORDER BY part of
it (temp.sql is the only test missing that). What do you think about
the attached?
--
Michael
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
regress-test-bugs.patch | text/x-diff | 25.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2019-08-09 05:02:36 | Re: Problem with default partition pruning |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2019-08-09 04:17:41 | Re: Problem with default partition pruning |