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: 2018-04-16 21:05:29
Message-ID: 29987.1523912729@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:
>> 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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-04-16 21:16:37 Re: Instability in partition_prune test?
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-04-16 20:51:33 Re: Instability in partition_prune test?