Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered

Thanks for this patch.  I have reviewed it:

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 12:53:13PM +0000, Clément Prévost wrote:
> After some experiments, I found out that, for my setup (9b7bfc3a88ef7b), a
> parallel seq scan is used given both parallel_setup_cost
> and parallel_tuple_cost are set to 0 and given that the table is at least 3
> times as large as the biggest test table tenk1.

That worked because it pushed the table over the create_plain_partial_paths()
1000-block (8 MiB) threshold; see
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/26842.1462941248@sss.pgh.pa.us

While the way you tested this is not wrong, I recommend instead querying an
inheritance parent if that achieves no less test coverage.  "SELECT count(*)
FROM a_star" gets a parallel plan under your cost parameters.  That avoids
building and discarding a relatively-large table.

> The attached patch is a regression test using this method that is
> reasonably small and fast to run. I also hid the workers count from the
> explain output when costs are disabled as suggested by Tom Lane and Robert
> Haas on this same thread (
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobBQS4ss3+CwoZOKgbsBqKfRndwc=hLiALAep5aXQCTDA@mail.gmail.com
> ).

It seems wrong to me for COSTS OFF to disable output that is not a cost
estimate.  file_fdw did that, but I don't want to proliferate that loose
interpretation of COSTS OFF.

Unlike the example in the linked-to message, this test won't experience
variable worker count.  For the query you used and for the a_star query, low
input size makes the planner request exactly one worker.  If later planner
enhancements give this query a configuration-specific worker count, the test
could capture EXPLAIN output with PL/pgSQL and compare it to a regex.

> Testing under these conditions does not test the planner job at all but at
> least some parallel code can be run on the build farm and the test suite
> gets 2643 more lines and 188 more function covered.

Nice.

> --- a/src/test/regress/parallel_schedule
> +++ b/src/test/regress/parallel_schedule
> @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ ignore: random
>  # ----------
>  # Another group of parallel tests
>  # ----------
> -test: select_into select_distinct select_distinct_on select_implicit select_having subselect union case join
aggregatestransactions random portals arrays btree_index hash_index update namespace prepared_xacts delete
 
> +test: select_into select_distinct select_distinct_on select_implicit select_having subselect union case join
aggregatestransactions random portals arrays btree_index hash_index update namespace prepared_xacts delete
select_parallel

Add this to serial_schedule, too.

> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/src/test/regress/sql/select_parallel.sql
> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> +--
> +-- PARALLEL
> +--
> +
> +-- setup parallel test
> +create unlogged table tenk_parallel as table tenk1 with no data;
> +set parallel_setup_cost=0;
> +set parallel_tuple_cost=0;
> +
> +-- create a table with enough data to trigger parallel behavior
> +insert into tenk_parallel
> +  select tenk1.* from tenk1, generate_series(0,2);
> +
> +explain (costs off)
> +  select count(*) from tenk_parallel;
> +select count(*) from tenk_parallel;

As of today, "make installcheck" passes with "default_transaction_isolation =
serializable" in postgresql.conf.  Let's preserve that property.  You could
wrap the parallel queries in "begin isolation level repeatable read;"
... "commit;", or you could SET default_transaction_isolation itself.

> +
> +-- cleanup
> +drop table tenk_parallel;
> +set parallel_setup_cost to default;
> +set parallel_tuple_cost to default;
> +

Remove the trailing blank line; it triggers a "git diff --check" diagnostic.


[Official open item status update: I expect to be able to review the next
patch version within a day or two of it becoming available.  I will update
this thread by 2016-06-14 09:00 UTC if not earlier.]