Re: The drop-index-concurrently-1 isolation test no longer tests what it was meant to

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: The drop-index-concurrently-1 isolation test no longer tests what it was meant to
Date: 2022-12-15 22:42:30
Message-ID: CAApHDvpOXF3mGVLaPUhrJz_dN8R5hiZb3Jb01TxZMd1esUGRMw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 18:26, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I propose the attached which gets rid of the not-so-great casting
> method that was originally added to this test to try and force the seq
> scan. It seems a little dangerous to put in hacks like that to force
> a particular plan when the resulting plan ends up penalized with a
> (1.0e10) disable_cost. The planner is just not going to be stable
> when the plan includes such a large penalty. To force the planner,
> I've added another test step to do set enable_seqscan to true and
> adjusted the permutations to run that just before preparing the seq
> scan query.

Pushed and backpatched to 13, where incremental sorts were added.

David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2022-12-15 22:47:21 Re: wake up logical workers after ALTER SUBSCRIPTION
Previous Message Fujii.Yuki@df.MitsubishiElectric.co.jp 2022-12-15 22:23:05 RE: Partial aggregates pushdown