Re: Why the buildfarm is all pink

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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