Hi, On 2022-04-06 11:50:11 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > It does work, but Tom prefers not to have the test at all, so I'll just > rip it out.
If I understand correctly the reason a large table is needed is to test parallelism, right? Wouldn't the better fix be to just tweak the parallelism settings for that table? See select_parallel.sql: -- encourage use of parallel plans set parallel_setup_cost=0; set parallel_tuple_cost=0; set min_parallel_table_scan_size=0; set max_parallel_workers_per_gather=4; might be worth also setting set parallel_leader_participation = off; to avoid the leader processing everything before workers have even started up. Greetings, Andres Freund
