Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 32110.1584121004@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) (James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:44 PM Tomas Vondra > <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> 1) I see a bunch of failures in the regression test, due to minor >> differences in the explain output. All the differences are about minor >> changes in memory usage, like this: >> >> - "Sort Space Used": 30, + >> + "Sort Space Used": 29, + >> >> I'm not sure if it happens on my machine only, but maybe the test is not >> entirely stable. > make check passes on multiple machines for me; what arch/distro are you using? I think there's exactly zero chance of such output being stable across different platforms, particularly 32-vs-64-bit. You'll need to either drop that test or find some way to mask the variability. > Is there a better way to test these? I would prefer these code paths > have test coverage, but the standard SQL tests don't leave a good way > to handle stuff like this. In some places we use plpgsql code to filter the EXPLAIN output. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: