On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:12 PM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 04:54:38PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >On 2020-Apr-06, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >> Locally, things pass without force_parallel_mode, but turning it on
> >> produces failures that look similar to rhinoceros's (didn't examine
> >> other BF members).
> >
> >FWIW I looked at the eight failures there were about fifteen minutes ago
> >and they were all identical. I can confirm that, in my laptop, the
> >tests work without that GUC, and fail in exactly that way with it.
> >
>
> Yes, there's a thinko in show_incremental_sort_info() and it returns too
> soon. I'll push a fix in a minute.
I'm stepping through this in a debugger; is what you're considering
that the for loop through the workers is off by one?
James
