Re: Instability in partition_prune test? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Instability in partition_prune test?
Date
Msg-id 20180416205133.gcknukjpmwpt6v47@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Instability in partition_prune test?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Instability in partition_prune test?
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It seems quite silly to be asking for a parallel plan and then insisting
> >> it not run in parallel.
> 
> > Now that you mention it, this probably decreases coverage for the
> > choose_next_subplan_for_worker function.
> 
> Yeah, loss of executor code coverage was what concerned me.

Here's a proposed patch for this.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: very slow queries when max_parallel_workers_per_gather is higherthan zero
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Instability in partition_prune test?