Thread: Minor issue with BRIN regression tests
Attached patch adjusts BRIN regression tests to make a non-obvious dependency on tuple order explicit. Currently, an index-only scan plan is used by the query that I've adjusted. I'd rather be sure that that continues. This was spotted while running the regression tests with the Postgres default B-Tree fillfactor significantly reduced. There was only one other failure, but that one was really obvious; in general I wouldn't bother with "fixing" such things. This, however, seems problematic, because insertion order matters for the purposes of the test. It's perhaps implied that the test consistently relies on the stable order of things within the tenk1 table, but it isn't actually so. -- Peter Geoghegan
Attachment
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > Attached patch adjusts BRIN regression tests to make a non-obvious > dependency on tuple order explicit. Currently, an index-only scan plan > is used by the query that I've adjusted. I'd rather be sure that that > continues. Here is another patch, this time removing a useless ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE test. -- Peter Geoghegan
Attachment
Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes:
> Attached patch adjusts BRIN regression tests to make a non-obvious
> dependency on tuple order explicit. Currently, an index-only scan plan
> is used by the query that I've adjusted. I'd rather be sure that that
> continues.
Applied with a correction: the ordering that was being used was really
"ORDER BY thousand, tenthous" because that's the order of the relevant
index.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > Here is another patch, this time removing a useless ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE test. Can someone commit this, please? -- Peter Geoghegan
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: >> Here is another patch, this time removing a useless ON CONFLICT DO UPDATE test. > > Can someone commit this, please? Removing that test doesn't seem important to me. Why does it seem important to you? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > Removing that test doesn't seem important to me. Why does it seem > important to you? It's a minor issue, but it's easily fixed. -- Peter Geoghegan
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> Removing that test doesn't seem important to me. Why does it seem >> important to you? > > It's a minor issue, but it's easily fixed. And what, in your opinion, is the issue? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > And what, in your opinion, is the issue? The test does not match the comment above it. It looks like someone (possibly me) pasted one too many template queries, that were never appropriately modified to fit the area under consideration. -- Peter Geoghegan
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> And what, in your opinion, is the issue? > > The test does not match the comment above it. It looks like someone > (possibly me) pasted one too many template queries, that were never > appropriately modified to fit the area under consideration. OK, now I understand. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > OK, now I understand. Thanks. -- Peter Geoghegan