On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 3:39 PM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, I think from a code review perspective the code in the patches
> LGTM.
> As for the EXPLAIN ANALYZE tests--I don't see that many of them in
> regress, so maybe that's because they aren't normally very useful. In
> this case, it would only be to protect against regressions in printing
> the leader instrumentation, I think.
> The problem with that is, even with all the non-deterministic info
> redacted, if the leader doesn't participate (which is not guaranteed),
> then its stats wouldn't be printed at all and that would cause an
> incorrectly failing test case...okay I just talked myself out of the
> usefulness of testing this.
> So, I would move it to "ready for committer", but, since it is not
> applying cleanly, I have changed the status to "waiting on author".
Hi Melanie,
Thanks for the reviews!
I think I'm going to abandon 0002 for now, because that stuff is being
refactored independently over here, so rebasing would be futile:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAOtHd0AvAA8CLB9Xz0wnxu1U%3DzJCKrr1r4QwwXi_kcQsHDVU%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com
On that basis, I've set it to ready for committer (meaning 0001 only).
Thanks for the rebase. I'll let that sit for a couple of days and see
if anything conflicting comes out of that other thread. It's a fair
complaint that we lack tests that show the new output; I'll think
about adding one too.
