Re: Instability in partition_prune test? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Instability in partition_prune test?
Date
Msg-id 31299.1523914270@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Instability in partition_prune test?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: Instability in partition_prune test?  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Seems reasonable.  I'm still uncomfortable with the assumption
>> that if we ask for two workers we will get two workers, but
>> that's a pre-existing problem in other parallel regression tests.

> Yeah, I was looking at that line and wondering.  But I think that'd
> require a different approach (*if* we see it fail, which I'm not sure we
> have), such as suppressing the Workers Launched lines without a plpgsql
> function to do it, since it's much more prevalent than this problem.

At least in this case, some of the "row" counts also depend on number
of workers, no?  So just hiding that line wouldn't do it.

Anyway, I agree that we shouldn't solve that problem until we see
that it's a problem in practice.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Instability in partition_prune test?
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Instability in partition_prune test?