Re: coverage increase for worker_spi

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: coverage increase for worker_spi
Date: 2019-05-30 16:51:27
Message-ID: 51992.1559235087@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2019-May-29, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not opposed to adding a new test case at this point in the cycle,
>> but as written this one seems more or less guaranteed to fail under
>> load.

> True. Here's a version that should be more resilient.

Hm, I don't understand how this works at all:

+ PERFORM pg_sleep(CASE WHEN count(*) = 0 THEN 0 ELSE 0.1 END)
+ FROM schema1.counted WHERE type = 'delta';
+ GET DIAGNOSTICS count = ROW_COUNT;

Given that it uses an aggregate, the ROW_COUNT must always be 1, no?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-05-30 17:00:52 Re: coverage increase for worker_spi
Previous Message David Steele 2019-05-30 16:45:12 Re: New committer: David Rowley