On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 13:00, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > > David Rowley <[email protected]> writes: > > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 15:55, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Now this *IS* autovacuum interference, but it's hardly autovacuum's fault: > >> the test script is supposing that autovac won't come in before it does a > >> manual analyze, and that's just unsafe on its face. > > > Why would that matter? > > Look again at the failure: the problem is that the test script is > populating a table, then doing an EXPLAIN and expecting to see > results corresponding to a *not*-ANALYZED table, then doing ANALYZE, > then expecting to see EXPLAIN results corresponding to the analyzed > state. It's the second step of that that is vulnerable to an > ill-timed auto analyze. The only way to prevent it is to disable > autovac altogether on the table, as I did a little while ago > at 0936d1b6f.
Can you share which failure you're talking about here? All of the ones I've looked at were failing post-ANALYZE. David
