From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel Append subplan order instability on aye-aye |
Date: | 2019-05-20 23:31:40 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGL1jZaZuUAtBhx0Bh6-qcOi5YwT9dZh8eZWmNmPauJvjA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 4:46 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Here's a one-off regression test failure of a sort that commit
> > 624e440a intended to fix.
>
> Note that in the discussion that led up to 624e440a, we never did
> think that we'd completely explained the original irreproducible
> failure.
>
> I think I've seen a couple of other cases of this same failure
> in the buildfarm recently, but too tired to go looking right now.
I think it might be dependent on incidental vacuum/analyze activity
having updated reltuples. With the attached script, I get the two
plan variants depending on whether I comment out "analyze a_star". I
guess we should explicitly analyze these X_star tables somewhere?
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
explain-parallel-append.sql.txt | text/plain | 4.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-05-21 00:04:50 | Re: PG 12 draft release notes |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-05-20 23:16:22 | Re: PG 12 draft release notes |