Re: Wrong results from Parallel Hash Full Join - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Wrong results from Parallel Hash Full Join
Date
Msg-id 20230419192051.xkgyj76akczpbjbs@awork3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Wrong results from Parallel Hash Full Join  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
Responses Re: Wrong results from Parallel Hash Full Join  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
Re: Wrong results from Parallel Hash Full Join  (Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2023-04-19 12:16:24 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 11:17:04AM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> > Ultimately this is probably fine. If we wanted to modify one of the
> > existing tests to cover the multi-batch case, changing the select
> > count(*) to a select * would do the trick. I imagine we wouldn't want to
> > do this because of the excessive output this would produce. I wondered
> > if there was a pattern in the tests for getting around this.
> 
> You could use explain (ANALYZE).  But the output is machine-dependant in
> various ways (which is why the tests use "explain analyze so rarely).

I think with sufficient options it's not machine specific. We have a bunch of
 EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, COSTS OFF, SUMMARY OFF, TIMING OFF) ..
in our tests.

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: ExecAggTransReparent is underdocumented and badly named
Next
From: Melanie Plageman
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we put command options in alphabetical order in the doc?