Horton

Re: Instability in partition_prune test?

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-04-16T20:51:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It seems quite silly to be asking for a parallel plan and then insisting
> >> it not run in parallel.
> 
> > Now that you mention it, this probably decreases coverage for the
> > choose_next_subplan_for_worker function.
> 
> Yeah, loss of executor code coverage was what concerned me.

Here's a proposed patch for this.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Restore partition_prune's usage of parallel workers

  2. Attempt to stabilize partition_prune test output (2)