Re: Instability in partition_prune test?

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, I was looking at that line and wondering.  But I think that'd
require a different approach (*if* we see it fail, which I'm not sure we
have), such as suppressing the Workers Launched lines without a plpgsql
function to do it, since it's much more prevalent than this problem.

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