Le jeudi 16 octobre 2014 10:43:25 Robert Haas a écrit : > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:03 AM, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Hmm, was my case above not compelling enough? > >> > >> Apparently not to Tom, but it made sense to me. > > > > No, it wasn't. I'm not convinced either that that patch will get in at > > all, or that it has to have regression tests of that particular form, > > or that such a switch would be sufficient to make such tests platform > > independent. > > People clearly want to be able to run EXPLAIN (ANALYZE) and get stable > output. If the proposed change isn't enough to make that happen, we > need to do more, not give up. Regardless of what happens to inner > join removal.
From my point of view as a FDW implementor, the feature I need is to have EXPLAIN (COSTS ON) with stable output for foreign scan nodes. In the Multicorn FDW (Python API on top of the C-API), we introduced this commit to make the tests pass on 9.4: https://github.com/Kozea/Multicorn/commit/76decb360b822b57bf322892ed6c504ba44a8b28 Clearly, we've lost the ability to test that the costs as set from the Python API are indeed used. But I agree that it would be better to have more flexibility in the regression framework itself. If this use case is too marginal to warrant such a change, I'll keep the tests as they are now. -- Ronan Dunklau http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
