On 11 April 2018 at 03:42, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
>> 2. Do we want to revert Andrew's test stabilization patch? If I
>> understand correctly, the problem is the inverse of what was diagnosed:
>> "any running transaction at the time of the test could prevent pages
>> from being set as all-visible". That's correct, but the test doesn't
>> depend on pages being all-visible -- quite the contrary, it depends on
>> the pages NOT being all-visible (which is why the HeapFetches counts are
>> all non-zero). Since the pages contain very few tuples, autovacuum
>> should never process the tables anyway.
>
> I did not especially like the original test output, because even without
> the bug at hand, it seemed to me the number of heap fetches might vary
> depending on BLCKSZ. Given that the point of the test is just to check
> partition pruning, seems like IOS vs regular indexscan isn't a critical
> difference. I'd keep Andrew's change but fix the comment.
hmm, I don't feel strongly about reverting or not, but if
[auto-]vacuum has not visited the table, then I don't see why BLCKSZ
would have an effect here.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services