Re: issue with synchronized_standby_slots

On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 2:58 PM Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 at 13:45, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > 2.
> > Also, test for PG18 should not have the case which rejects the reserved name.
> >

Why to have that even for HEAD and PG18?

> > 3.
> > ```
> > -- Parallel worker does not throw error during startup.
> > SET min_parallel_table_scan_size TO 0;
> > SET parallel_setup_cost TO 0;
> > SET parallel_tuple_cost TO 0;
> > ```
> >
> > According to contrib/pg_stat_statements/sql/parallel.sql, max_parallel_workers_per_gather
> > should be also set. There is a possiblity that `make installcheck` is used and
> > it has max_parallel_workers_per_gather=0.
> >

+-- Parallel worker does not throw error during startup.
+SET min_parallel_table_scan_size TO 0;
+SET max_parallel_workers_per_gather TO 2;
+SET parallel_setup_cost TO 0;
+SET parallel_tuple_cost TO 0;
+CREATE TABLE t1(a int);
+INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1), (2), (3), (4);
+SELECT count(*) FROM t1;

Isn't it better to reset these parameters after the test?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.