On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:20 PM James Coleman <jtc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:12 PM Tomas Vondra > <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 04:54:38PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > >On 2020-Apr-06, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > >> Locally, things pass without force_parallel_mode, but turning it on > > >> produces failures that look similar to rhinoceros's (didn't examine > > >> other BF members). > > > > > >FWIW I looked at the eight failures there were about fifteen minutes ago > > >and they were all identical. I can confirm that, in my laptop, the > > >tests work without that GUC, and fail in exactly that way with it. > > > > > > > Yes, there's a thinko in show_incremental_sort_info() and it returns too > > soon. I'll push a fix in a minute. > > I'm stepping through this in a debugger; is what you're considering > that the for loop through the workers is off by one?
Oh, nevermind, misread that. Looks like if the leader doesn't participate, then we don't show details for workers. Tomas: Do you already have a patch? If not, I can work one up. James
