| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Malis <michaelmalis2(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Poor cost estimate with interaction between table correlation and partial indexes |
| Date: | 2017-08-30 12:00:25 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobv3VPRGi1FXeVNoxBwOuuH_J_J0YuU8HwRu2WH9QMvyA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Michael Malis <michaelmalis2(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> (Sorry David. I initially replied only to you)
>
> Ok. I've attached a patch of a proof-of-concept. I have a few
> questions about tests.
>
> What is typical workflow to add tests for changes to the planner?
Add submitted patches at commitfest.postgresql.org
> Also
> I ran make check and it appears one of the existing tests is failing.
> What is a typical way for going about discovering why the query plan
> for a specific query changed?
I don't have any magic answer on this point.
> Also, how should I go about changing the
> old test? Should I replace the old test output with the new test
> output or modify the old test slightly to get it to produce the same
> case as before?
That's a judgement call, based on what you think the point of the test was.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2017-08-30 12:00:39 | Re: Parallel worker error |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-30 11:55:03 | Re: Parallel worker error |