On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:22 PM James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:20 PM James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:12 PM Tomas Vondra
> > <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 04:54:38PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > >On 2020-Apr-06, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Locally, things pass without force_parallel_mode, but turning it on
> > > >> produces failures that look similar to rhinoceros's (didn't examine
> > > >> other BF members).
> > > >
> > > >FWIW I looked at the eight failures there were about fifteen minutes ago
> > > >and they were all identical. I can confirm that, in my laptop, the
> > > >tests work without that GUC, and fail in exactly that way with it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, there's a thinko in show_incremental_sort_info() and it returns too
> > > soon. I'll push a fix in a minute.
> >
> > I'm stepping through this in a debugger; is what you're considering
> > that the for loop through the workers is off by one?
>
> Oh, nevermind, misread that.
>
> Looks like if the leader doesn't participate, then we don't show
> details for workers.
>
> Tomas: Do you already have a patch? If not, I can work one up.
Well, already have it, so I'll send it just in case.
James