On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:23 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> That is wrong and I think you have hit a bug. It should be 2974 * 5 = >> 14870 as you have seen in other cases. The problem is that during >> rescan, we generally reinitialize the required state, but we forgot to >> reinitialize the instrumentation related memory which is used in the >> accumulation of stats, so changing that would fix some part of this >> problem which is that at Parallel node, you won't see wrong values. >> However, we also need to ensure that the per-worker details also get >> accumulated across rescans. Attached patch should fix the problem you >> are seeing. I think this needs some more analysis and testing to see >> if everything works in the desired way. >> >> Is it possible for you to test the attached patch and see if you are >> still seeing any unexpected values? > > FWIW, this looks sensible to me. Not sure if there's any good way to > write a regression test for it. >
I think so, but not 100% sure. I will give it a try and report back. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com