On 4/13/24 11:19, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 4/13/24 10:36, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> While preparing a differential code coverage report between 16 and HEAD, one
>> thing that stands out is the parallel brin build code. Neither on
>> coverage.postgresql.org nor locally is that code reached during our tests.
>>
>
> Thanks for pointing this out, it's definitely something that I need to
> improve (admittedly, should have been part of the patch). I'll also look
> into eliminating the difference between BTREE and BRIN parallel builds,
> mentioned in my last message in this thread.
>
Here's a couple patches adding a test for the parallel CREATE INDEX with
BRIN. The actual test is 0003/0004 - I added the test to pageinspect,
because that allows cross-checking the index to one built without
parallelism, which I think is better than just doing CREATE INDEX
without properly testing it produces correct results.
It's not entirely trivial because for some opclasses (e.g. minmax-multi)
the results depend on the order in which values are added, and order in
which summaries from different workers are merged.
Funnily enough, while adding the test, I ran into two pre-existing bugs.
One is that brin_bloom_union forgot to update the number of bits set in
the bitmap, another one is that 6bcda4a721 changes PG_DETOAST_DATUM to
the _PACKED version, which however does the wrong thing. Both of which
are mostly harmless - it only affects the output function, which is
unused outside pageinspect. No impact on query correctness etc.
The test needs a bit more work to make sure it works on 32-bit machines
etc. which I think may affect available space on a page, which in turn
might affect the minmax-multi summaries. But I'll take care this early
next week.
Funnily
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
