On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 01:08:08AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Le lun. 26 juil. 2021 à 00:59, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> a écrit :
>
> > Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
> > > On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 12:03:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
>
> > > Would it be worth to split the query for the prepared statement row vs
> > the rest
> > > to keep the full "plans" coverage when possible?
> >
> > +1, the same thought occurred to me later. Also, if we're making
> > it specific to the one PREPARE example, we could get away with
> > checking "plans >= 2 AND plans <= calls", with a comment like
> > "we expect at least one replan event, but there could be more".
>
>
> > Do you want to prepare a patch?
> >
>
> Sure, I will work on that tomorrow!
I attach a patch that splits the test and add a comment explaining the
boundaries for the new query.
Checked with and without forced invalidations.
