Horton

Re: Instability in partition_prune test?

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-04-16T21:05:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, loss of executor code coverage was what concerned me.

> Here's a proposed patch for this.

Seems reasonable.  I'm still uncomfortable with the assumption
that if we ask for two workers we will get two workers, but
that's a pre-existing problem in other parallel regression tests.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Restore partition_prune's usage of parallel workers

  2. Attempt to stabilize partition_prune test output (2)