Re: Instability in partition_prune test?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David Rowley
Тема Re: Instability in partition_prune test?
Дата
Msg-id CAKJS1f8j24tUX_nOwACiM=UO5jrMrDz8ca0xbG0vhVgfWph0ZA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Instability in partition_prune test?  (David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: Instability in partition_prune test?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Re: Instability in partition_prune test?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 13 April 2018 at 14:41, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I'll just need to go think about how we can make the test stable now.

Thomas and I discussed this a bit off-list.

The attached basically adds:

set max_parallel_workers = 0;

before the Parallel Append tests.

All those tests were intended to do what check that "(never executed)"
appeared for the correct nodes. They still do that.

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Amit Langote
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: wal_consistency_checking reports an inconsistency on masterbranch
Следующее
От: Ashutosh Bapat
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning