On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:20 PM James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
Oh, nevermind, misread that.
Looks like if the leader doesn't participate, then we don't show
details for workers.
Tomas: Do you already have a patch? If not, I can work one up.
James
