Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2013-12-10 19:55:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We need a more consistent strategy for this :-(
> Agreed, although I have no clue how it should look like. As a further
> datapoint I'll add that installcheck already regularly fails in HEAD if
> you have a HS standby connected via SR and hot_standby_feedback=on on
> the standby. Some plans just change from index(only) scans to sequential
> scans, presumably because of the lower xmin horizon changed the
> stats. Since there's nothing running on the standby in those cases,
> there has to be a pretty damn tiny window here somewhere.
The case in create_index does a "vacuum analyze tenk1" and expects
to get an index-only scan in the very next SQL command. So any delay
in considering the table all-visible could break that test. I'm not
sure if that's what you're talking about though. We could easily
create some more delay for that case, for instance by moving the
vacuum step to copy.sql as I was idly speculating about upthread.
Do you remember offhand where the failures are?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
