| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PGOPTIONS="-fh" make check gets stuck since Postgres 11 |
| Date: | 2019-07-09 01:49:59 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGJvpFFU9U+rzFmBnZnEN9gzT7pPoB-1GWUhDksPMs1_EA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 2:19 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Given the purposes of this test, I think it'd be reasonable to force
> both enable_hashjoin = on and enable_mergejoin = off at the very top
> of the join_hash script, or the corresponding place in join.sql in
> v11. Thomas, was there a specific reason for forcing enable_mergejoin
> = off for only some of these tests?
Based on a suggestion from Andres (if I recall correctly), I wrapped
each individual test in savepoint/rollback, and then set just the GUCs
needed to get the plan shape and execution code path I wanted to
exercise, and I guess I found that I only needed to disable merge
joins for some of them. The idea was that the individual tests could
be understood independently.
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jamison, Kirk | 2019-07-09 02:12:18 | RE: [PATCH] Speedup truncates of relation forks |
| Previous Message | James Coleman | 2019-07-09 01:44:44 | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) |