On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > This doesn't make me happy. Aside from the sheer waste of cycles > involved in re-analyzing the entire regression database, this > test runs in parallel with half a dozen others, and it could cause > plan instability in those. Of course, if it does, then most likely > those tests have a hazard from autovacuum anyway. But this still > looks to me like a poor bit of test design.
Agreed. > Anyway, bottom line is that I think we need to institute, and > back-patch, some consistent scheme for when to analyze the standard > tables during the regression tests, so that we don't have hazards > like this for tests that want to check what plan gets selected. > > Comments? Everything you're saying sounds reasonable from here. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
