From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Instability of partition_prune regression test results |
Date: | 2019-09-28 07:20:08 |
Message-ID: | CA+HiwqEO+bouYq2kFGRCQHarAk-MYoheaU6T1twC1-GENZJPrQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:59 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 7:25 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> I experimented with adjusting explain_parallel_append() to filter
> >> more fields, but soon realized that we'd have to filter out basically
> >> everything that makes it useful to run EXPLAIN ANALYZE at all.
> >> Therefore, I think it's time to give up this testing methodology
> >> as a bad idea, and fall back to the time-honored way of running a
> >> plain EXPLAIN and then the actual query, as per the attached patch.
>
> > Isn't the point of using ANALYZE here to show that the exec-param
> > based run-time pruning is working (those "never executed" strings)?
>
> Hm. Well, if you want to see those, we could do it as attached.
Perfect, thanks.
Regards,
Amit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-09-28 08:06:46 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-09-28 06:28:15 | Re: Cleanup code related to OpenSSL <= 0.9.6 in fe/be-secure-openssl.c |