Re: The drop-index-concurrently-1 isolation test no longer tests what it was meant to - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: The drop-index-concurrently-1 isolation test no longer tests what it was meant to
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvpOXF3mGVLaPUhrJz_dN8R5hiZb3Jb01TxZMd1esUGRMw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to The drop-index-concurrently-1 isolation test no longer tests what it was meant to  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 at 18:26, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> I propose the attached which gets rid of the not-so-great casting
> method that was originally added to this test to try and force the seq
> scan.  It seems a little dangerous to put in hacks like that to force
> a particular plan when the resulting plan ends up penalized with a
> (1.0e10) disable_cost.  The planner is just not going to be stable
> when the plan includes such a large penalty. To force the planner,
> I've added another test step to do set enable_seqscan to true and
> adjusted the permutations to run that just before preparing the seq
> scan query.

Pushed and backpatched to 13, where incremental sorts were added.

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Fujii.Yuki@df.MitsubishiElectric.co.jp"
Date:
Subject: RE: Partial aggregates pushdown
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: wake up logical workers after ALTER SUBSCRIPTION