From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PGOPTIONS="-fh" make check gets stuck since Postgres 11 |
Date: | 2019-07-09 02:22:13 |
Message-ID: | 16529.1562638933@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 2:19 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Given the purposes of this test, I think it'd be reasonable to force
>> both enable_hashjoin = on and enable_mergejoin = off at the very top
>> of the join_hash script, or the corresponding place in join.sql in
>> v11. Thomas, was there a specific reason for forcing enable_mergejoin
>> = off for only some of these tests?
> Based on a suggestion from Andres (if I recall correctly), I wrapped
> each individual test in savepoint/rollback, and then set just the GUCs
> needed to get the plan shape and execution code path I wanted to
> exercise, and I guess I found that I only needed to disable merge
> joins for some of them. The idea was that the individual tests could
> be understood independently.
But per this discussion, they can only be "understood independently"
if you make some assumptions about the prevailing values of the
planner GUCs.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-07-09 02:30:51 | Re: PGOPTIONS="-fh" make check gets stuck since Postgres 11 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-07-09 02:20:52 | Re: PGOPTIONS="-fh" make check gets stuck since Postgres 11 |