Re: coverage increase for worker_spi
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: coverage increase for worker_spi |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 51992.1559235087@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: coverage increase for worker_spi (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: coverage increase for worker_spi
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-May-29, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not opposed to adding a new test case at this point in the cycle,
>> but as written this one seems more or less guaranteed to fail under
>> load.
> True. Here's a version that should be more resilient.
Hm, I don't understand how this works at all:
+ PERFORM pg_sleep(CASE WHEN count(*) = 0 THEN 0 ELSE 0.1 END)
+ FROM schema1.counted WHERE type = 'delta';
+ GET DIAGNOSTICS count = ROW_COUNT;
Given that it uses an aggregate, the ROW_COUNT must always be 1, no?
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: