On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 04:46, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > I'd be inclined to undo what you did in favor of initializing the
> > test tables to contain significantly different numbers of rows,
> > because that would (a) achieve plan stability more directly,
> > and (b) demonstrate that the planner is actually ordering the
> > tables by cost correctly. Maybe somewhere else we have a test
> > that is verifying (b), but these test cases abysmally fail to
> > check that point.
>
> Concretely, I suggest the attached, which replaces the autovac disables
> with adjusting partition boundaries so that the partitions contain
> different numbers of rows.
I've looked over this and I agree that it's a better solution to the problem.
I'm happy for you to go ahead on this.
David
