Re: Instability in partition_prune test?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Instability in partition_prune test?
Date: 2018-04-13 14:05:00
Message-ID: 4475.1523628300@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> The attached basically adds:
> set max_parallel_workers = 0;

It seems quite silly to be asking for a parallel plan and then insisting
it not run in parallel.

Maybe the right solution is to strip out the loop_count from what's
printed. We've already done that sort of thing in at least one other
test, using some plpgsql code to "sed" the EXPLAIN output.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-04-13 14:25:45 Re: Instability in partition_prune test?
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-04-13 14:01:23 Re: Instability in partition_prune test?