| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: brin regression test intermittent failures |
| Date: | 2015-06-04 17:14:59 |
| Message-ID: | 13134.1433438099@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> I think it would be a good idea to extend the brinopers table to include
> the number of expected matches, and to complain if that's not what we got,
> rather than simply checking for zero.
Also, further experimentation shows that there are about 30 entries in the
brinopers table that give rise to seqscan plans even when we're commanding
a bitmap scan, presumably because those operators aren't brin-indexable.
They're not the problematic cases, but things like
((charcol)::text > 'A'::text)
Is there a reason to have such things in the table, or is this just a
thinko? Or is it actually a bug that we're getting such plans?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-06-04 17:17:30 | Re: brin regression test intermittent failures |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-06-04 17:02:02 | Re: brin regression test intermittent failures |