Re: Instability of partition_prune regression test results

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Instability of partition_prune regression test results
Date: 2019-09-28 17:34:19
Message-ID: 24792.1569692059@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:59 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Isn't the point of using ANALYZE here to show that the exec-param
>>> based run-time pruning is working (those "never executed" strings)?

>> Hm. Well, if you want to see those, we could do it as attached.

> Perfect, thanks.

OK, pushed that way.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-09-28 17:36:31 Re: Unstable select_parallel regression output in 12rc1
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2019-09-28 17:26:02 Re: Standby accepts recovery_target_timeline setting?