Re: pg_plan_advice

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, "heikki(dot)linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: pg_plan_advice
Date: 2026-04-08 14:49:01
Message-ID: adZq3Rlxq3v916aG@nathan
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 07, 2026 at 06:05:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 0001 and 0002 implement the "retry a few times" idea for avoiding
>> test_plan_advice failures. I argue that (a) these are reasonable
>> post-commit stabilization that should not be blocked by feature freeze
>> and (b) most people here will be happier with a solution like this
>> that will normally cost very little than they will be with switching
>> test_plan_advice to executing serially. The RMT can decide whether it
>> agrees.
>
> I'm not on the RMT, but I agree this is a nicer solution.
> (I didn't read these patches in detail, but in a quick once-over
> they seemed plausible.)
>
>> The other question here is whether it's really a good idea to
>> apply this now considering that we've seen only one failure so far. I
>> think it's probably a good idea to do something like this before
>> release, so that we hopefully reduce the false positive rate from the
>> test to something much closer to zero, but I think we've still had
>> only the one failure, and I'm really interested in knowing how close
>> the failure rate is to zero already. The RMT may have an opinion on
>> how long to wait before doing something like this, too.
>
> No strong opinion about that. Certainly waiting a couple of weeks
> to gather more data seems reasonable.

I am only 1/3 of the RMT, but I am fine with the plan as stated.

--
nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sami Imseih 2026-04-08 14:52:39 Re: test_autovacuum/001_parallel_autovacuum is broken
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2026-04-08 14:34:14 Re: feature freeze for v19 begins April 8th at 12:00 UTC