| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Instability in partition_prune test? |
| Date: | 2018-04-13 15:56:28 |
| Message-ID: | 28432.1523634988@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It seems quite silly to be asking for a parallel plan and then insisting
>> it not run in parallel.
> Now that you mention it, this probably decreases coverage for the
> choose_next_subplan_for_worker function.
Yeah, loss of executor code coverage was what concerned me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikolay Samokhvalov | 2018-04-13 16:07:03 | Re: Built-in connection pooling |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-13 15:55:22 | Re: Overcoming SELECT ... FOR UPDATE permission restrictions |