Re: SerializeParamList vs machines with strict alignment

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:08 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> Also, I believe
> >> that coding the test this way makes the leader send the param values to
> >> multiple workers, which would flush out any problems with serializing a
> >> value multiple times. As against that, there's a hazard that the number
> >> of workers might not be stable ...
>
> > Yeah, I was actually more worried about instability part, but now I
> > have tested it on both windows and centos machine and the test passes,
> > so I am okay with that. However, I feel if we want to go with that,
> > there is actually no need of statement "SET force_parallel_mode=1".
>
> OK, I hadn't tested to see if that could be dropped, but if it can,
> then we don't need it. The EXPLAIN is enough to ensure that the
> test is doing what we want.
>

Right.

> (I think we could drop the savepoint
> too, no?)
>

One advantage of keeping the savepoint is that we don't need to
explicitly drop the objects which we have created temporarily for this
test.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com