| 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
| 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 |