| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we add debug_parallel_query=regress to CI? |
| Date: | 2025-03-05 16:19:46 |
| Message-ID: | 313859.1741191586@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Post-commit issues due to debug_parallel_query=regress seem rather common,
> surely not helped by CI/cfbot not flagging them. I wonder if we ought to make
> one of the CI tasks use debug_parallel_query=regress, to avoid that problem?
Yeah, it certainly seems like a test coverage gap. However, we seem to
be moving towards a situation where each type of CI run is a special
snowflake that differs in multiple dimensions from other types.
That might make it difficult to figure out which dimension is
responsible for a particular failure.
(OTOH, the same can be said of the buildfarm, and we've survived
regardless. So maybe I'm worried over nothing.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-03-05 16:28:50 | Re: doc: expand note about pg_upgrade's --jobs option |
| Previous Message | Isaac Morland | 2025-03-05 16:17:06 | Re: Allow database owners to CREATE EVENT TRIGGER |