Re: Instability in partition_prune test?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
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: 2018-04-13 15:56:28
Message-ID: 28432.1523634988@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikolay Samokhvalov 2018-04-13 16:07:03 Re: Built-in connection pooling
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-04-13 15:55:22 Re: Overcoming SELECT ... FOR UPDATE permission restrictions