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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Instability in partition_prune test?
Date
Msg-id 29987.1523912729@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Instability in partition_prune test?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: Instability in partition_prune test?
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, loss of executor code coverage was what concerned me.

> Here's a proposed patch for this.

Seems reasonable.  I'm still uncomfortable with the assumption
that if we ask for two workers we will get two workers, but
that's a pre-existing problem in other parallel regression tests.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Instability in partition_prune test?
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Instability in partition_prune test?