| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, tcook(at)blackducksoftware(dot)com, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: ddd |
| Date: | 2017-12-21 15:18:05 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaATbCPrzkPWCatGZuOOGis_h-8VwAK9Pbgv4tkG4qwrg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Great subject line!
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I think both I and commit e9baa5e9fa147e are confused.
>
> By my reading this is the fault of e9baa5e9fa147e [3]. Robert, Haribabu
> any idea?
If I run the regression tests with force_parallel_mode=on prior to the
parallel hash join patch, they pass. If I run them now, they fail
inside the parallel hash join tests here:
create table wide as select generate_series(1, 2) as id, rpad('',
320000, 'x') as t;
I'm guessing that test case would have failed before, too, but we
didn't have it. I'll analyze this further in a bit.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-12-21 15:26:04 | Re: General purpose hashing func in pgbench |
| Previous Message | Todd A. Cook | 2017-12-21 14:55:16 | Re: force parallel mode vs CTAS |