Re: To what extent should tests rely on VACUUM ANALYZE?
От | Richard Guo |
---|---|
Тема | Re: To what extent should tests rely on VACUUM ANALYZE? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMbWs49t_pOq4Rm-_Dc+WKCrUOUpw3teZP9AG0OSdnjSFRuqrQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [MASSMAIL]To what extent should tests rely on VACUUM ANALYZE? (Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:00 PM Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> wrote:
When running multiple 027_stream_regress.pl test instances in parallel
(and with aggressive autovacuum) on a rather slow machine, I encountered
test failures due to the subselect test instability just as the following
failures on buildfarm:
1) https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=grassquit&dt=2024-03-27%2010%3A16%3A12
--- /home/bf/bf-build/grassquit/HEAD/pgsql/src/test/regress/expected/subselect.out 2024-03-19 22:20:34.435867114 +0000
+++ /home/bf/bf-build/grassquit/HEAD/pgsql.build/testrun/recovery/027_stream_regress/data/results/subselect.out
2024-03-27 10:28:38.185776605 +0000
@@ -2067,16 +2067,16 @@
QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------
Hash Join
- Hash Cond: (c.odd = b.odd)
+ Hash Cond: (c.hundred = a.hundred)
-> Hash Join
- Hash Cond: (a.hundred = c.hundred)
- -> Seq Scan on tenk1 a
+ Hash Cond: (b.odd = c.odd)
+ -> Seq Scan on tenk2 b
-> Hash
-> HashAggregate
Group Key: c.odd, c.hundred
-> Seq Scan on tenk2 c
-> Hash
- -> Seq Scan on tenk2 b
+ -> Seq Scan on tenk1 a
(11 rows)
FWIW, this issue is also being reproduced in Cirrus CI, as Matthias
reported in another thread [1] days ago.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEze2WiiE-iTKxgWQzcjyiiiA4q-zsdkkAdCaD_E83xA2g2BLA%40mail.gmail.com
Thanks
Richard
reported in another thread [1] days ago.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEze2WiiE-iTKxgWQzcjyiiiA4q-zsdkkAdCaD_E83xA2g2BLA%40mail.gmail.com
Thanks
Richard
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: