| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Instability in partition_prune test? |
| Date: | 2018-04-13 14:05:00 |
| Message-ID: | 4475.1523628300@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> The attached basically adds:
> set max_parallel_workers = 0;
It seems quite silly to be asking for a parallel plan and then insisting
it not run in parallel.
Maybe the right solution is to strip out the loop_count from what's
printed. We've already done that sort of thing in at least one other
test, using some plpgsql code to "sed" the EXPLAIN output.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-04-13 14:25:45 | Re: Instability in partition_prune test? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-04-13 14:01:23 | Re: Instability in partition_prune test? |