On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:08 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> > I think if we do Analyze on the table after populating rows, it should
> > use just one worker and that should be sufficient to hit the case
> > being discussed. I would like to change the test so that it uses just
> > one worker.
>
> I thought that adding an ANALYZE would make the test be net slower, not
> faster; ANALYZE isn't free, even on just a row or so.
>
Hmm, I am curious to know what is your theory behind this? I was
under impression that spawning two additional workers would cost more
than Analyze.
> Also, I believe
> that coding the test this way makes the leader send the param values to
> multiple workers, which would flush out any problems with serializing a
> value multiple times. As against that, there's a hazard that the number
> of workers might not be stable ...
Yeah, I was actually more worried about instability part, but now I
have tested it on both windows and centos machine and the test passes,
so I am okay with that. However, I feel if we want to go with that,
there is actually no need of statement "SET force_parallel_mode=1".
That statement is required to force parallelism on such a small table.
It won't harm, but is misleading and in future people will try to copy
it in other tests
> but it seems like we have lots of
> other occurrences of that same hazard elsewhere in this test script.
>
Right.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
