Re: Instability of partition_prune regression test results
От | Amit Langote |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Instability of partition_prune regression test results |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+HiwqEO+bouYq2kFGRCQHarAk-MYoheaU6T1twC1-GENZJPrQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Instability of partition_prune regression test results (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Instability of partition_prune regression test results
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:59 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 7:25 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> I experimented with adjusting explain_parallel_append() to filter > >> more fields, but soon realized that we'd have to filter out basically > >> everything that makes it useful to run EXPLAIN ANALYZE at all. > >> Therefore, I think it's time to give up this testing methodology > >> as a bad idea, and fall back to the time-honored way of running a > >> plain EXPLAIN and then the actual query, as per the attached patch. > > > Isn't the point of using ANALYZE here to show that the exec-param > > based run-time pruning is working (those "never executed" strings)? > > Hm. Well, if you want to see those, we could do it as attached. Perfect, thanks. Regards, Amit
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: