From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why the buildfarm is all pink |
Date: | 2013-12-11 02:50:30 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZncQDOcKYWC6zsXN0vD-byN_ZRUdt8+HvJm=SGOyyCyA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> This doesn't make me happy. Aside from the sheer waste of cycles
> involved in re-analyzing the entire regression database, this
> test runs in parallel with half a dozen others, and it could cause
> plan instability in those. Of course, if it does, then most likely
> those tests have a hazard from autovacuum anyway. But this still
> looks to me like a poor bit of test design.
Agreed.
> Anyway, bottom line is that I think we need to institute, and
> back-patch, some consistent scheme for when to analyze the standard
> tables during the regression tests, so that we don't have hazards
> like this for tests that want to check what plan gets selected.
>
> Comments?
Everything you're saying sounds reasonable from here.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-12-11 03:02:08 | Re: Completing PL support for Event Triggers |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-12-11 02:33:46 | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO |