Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:36 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't think so because this problem has been reported previously as >> well [1][2] even before the commit in question. >> >> [1] - >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1ce5a19f-3b1d-bb1c-4561-0158176f65f1%40dunslane.net >> [2] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/25861.1472215822%40sss.pgh.pa.us
> Oh, good point. So this is a longstanding bug that has possibly just > gotten easier to hit. > I still think figuring out what's going on with the > ParallelWorkerNumbers is a good plan. Also, your suggestion in https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmob29v0zASBNfgO1Mq9yJ7_TRoAjL%3DO%2B2rXS0gBZezv%2BrQ%40mail.gmail.com for a quicker path to reproducing it might still be valid. Although at this point, it seems like something we've changed recently has made it occur often enough in the buildfarm that repeating the standard regression tests should be good enough. 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
