Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Yeah, loss of executor code coverage was what concerned me. > > > Here's a proposed patch for this. > > Seems reasonable. I'm still uncomfortable with the assumption > that if we ask for two workers we will get two workers, but > that's a pre-existing problem in other parallel regression tests.
Yeah, I was looking at that line and wondering. But I think that'd require a different approach (*if* we see it fail, which I'm not sure we have), such as suppressing the Workers Launched lines without a plpgsql function to do it, since it's much more prevalent than this problem. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
