On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:31 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:49 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Apparently the only somewhat-modern architecture that is resolutely > >> unaligned-unfriendly is MIPS. > > > It's been a few years now since I worked on that architecture, but > > Sparc is somewhat-modern and resolutely unaligned-unfriendly. It's > > just that you can optionally install a trap handler that will do super > > slow non-atomic misaligned access in software instead of blowing up > > with SIGBUS. With the Sun toolchain you did that explicitly by > > building with -misalign (though it's possible that more recent > > compilers might be doing that without being asked?). > > Interesting ... I suppose we'd have seen that on the Sparc critters, > except that they weren't running with force_parallel_mode = regress > like chipmunk is. > > Now I'm tempted to propose that Amit commit *just* the test case > and not the fix, and wait a day to see which buildfarm critters fail. >
Okay, I will take care of that. Are you proposing to commit the test only on HEAD or in back-branches as well? Ideally committing on HEAD would serve our purpose. There is one difference in our tests which I would like to highlight: fix_datum_serialization_v2: +EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) EXECUTE stmt_sel_domain(make_psafe_ad(1,2)); + QUERY PLAN +-------------------------------------------------------- + Gather + Workers Planned: 1 + Single Copy: true + -> Seq Scan on tarrdomain + Filter: ((c2)::integer[] = '{1,2}'::integer[]) +(5 rows) fix_datum_serialization_v3 ! EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) EXECUTE pstmt('1', make_some_array(1,2)); ! QUERY PLAN ! ------------------------------------------------------------------ ! Gather ! Workers Planned: 3 ! -> Parallel Seq Scan on foo ! Filter: ((f1 = '1'::text) AND (f2 = '{1,2}'::integer[])) ! (4 rows) I think if we do Analyze on the table after populating rows, it should use just one worker and that should be sufficient to hit the case being discussed. I would like to change the test so that it uses just one worker. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com