From: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Regression test fails when BLCKSZ is 1kB |
Date: | 2008-04-22 18:54:41 |
Message-ID: | 5027891E-832C-4923-856F-68E548E2CB4A@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 21, 2008, at 7:25 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Montag, 21. April 2008 schrieb Zdenek Kotala:
>> I compiled postgreSQL with 1kB block size and regresion test
>> fails. Main
>> problem is that output is correct but in different order. See
>> attachment.
>
> This was previously reported:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-11/msg00901.php
>
>> I think affected test should contain order by keyword.
>
> For previously established reasons, we don't want to add ORDER BY
> clauses to
> every test that might fail under exceptional circumstances so we
> test all
> plan types equally. I think very small block sizes are fairly
> exceptional,
> unless you have a reason up your sleeve why they are a good idea.
What if we used the OFFSET 0 trick to force the ordering to occur
outside of what we're testing? IE:
SELECT * FROM (query we're testing OFFSET 0) ORDER BY blah;
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2008-04-22 18:58:07 | Re: Per-table random_page_cost for tables that we know are always cached |
Previous Message | Decibel! | 2008-04-22 18:41:51 | Re: Per-table random_page_cost for tables that we know are always cached |