Testing "workers launched" in expected output? Really? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Testing "workers launched" in expected output? Really?
Date
Msg-id 17385.1520018934@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Testing "workers launched" in expected output? Really?  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
So buildfarm member piculet just fell over like this:

================== pgsql.build/src/test/regress/regression.diffs ==================
*** /home/andres/build/buildfarm-piculet/HEAD/pgsql.build/../pgsql/src/test/regress/expected/select_parallel.out
2018-02-2816:10:01.986941733 +0000 
--- /home/andres/build/buildfarm-piculet/HEAD/pgsql.build/src/test/regress/results/select_parallel.out    2018-03-02
19:13:57.843939790+0000 
***************
*** 485,495 ****
                                  QUERY PLAN
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Aggregate (actual rows=1 loops=1)
!    ->  Nested Loop (actual rows=98000 loops=1)
           ->  Seq Scan on tenk2 (actual rows=10 loops=1)
                 Filter: (thousand = 0)
                 Rows Removed by Filter: 9990
!          ->  Gather (actual rows=9800 loops=10)
                 Workers Planned: 4
                 Workers Launched: 4
                 ->  Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (actual rows=1960 loops=50)
--- 485,495 ----
                                  QUERY PLAN
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Aggregate (actual rows=1 loops=1)
!    ->  Nested Loop (actual rows=97836 loops=1)
           ->  Seq Scan on tenk2 (actual rows=10 loops=1)
                 Filter: (thousand = 0)
                 Rows Removed by Filter: 9990
!          ->  Gather (actual rows=9784 loops=10)
                 Workers Planned: 4
                 Workers Launched: 4
                 ->  Parallel Seq Scan on tenk1 (actual rows=1960 loops=50)

======================================================================

and now I am on the warpath.  I have no idea whether or not the diff
here is significant --- maybe it is --- but I am desperately unhappy
that we have expected-output files that will fail if fewer than the
expected number of workers launched.  I find that absolutely
unacceptable.  It reminds me entirely too much of when I had to package
MySQL for Red Hat, and half the time the package builds failed in
Red Hat's buildfarm, because their tests weren't robust about passing
on heavily loaded machines.  I won't stand for our tests becoming
like that.

Perhaps we could deal with this by suppressing the Workers Planned/
Launched lines when we are suppressing costs?

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] get rid of StdRdOptions, use individual binaryreloptions representation for each relation kind instead
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [FEATURE PATCH] pg_stat_statements with plans (v02)