On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 12:00 PM Alexander Lakhin <exclus...@gmail.com> wrote: > 18.07.2024 17:30, Richard Guo wrote: > > I have no idea why the underlying statistics changed, but it seems > > that this slight change is sufficent to result in a different plan. > > I think it could be caused by the same reason as [1] and I really can > easily (without multiple instances/loops. just with `make check`) reproduce > the failure with cranky-ConditionalLockBufferForCleanup.patch (but > targeted for "VACUUM ANALYZE tenk1;").
Yeah. Anyway I think we need to make the test more tolerant of slight variations in the statistics. > > According to the discussion in [1], I think what we wanted to test > > with this query is that parallel nestloop join is not generated if the > > inner path is not parallel-safe. Therefore, I modified this test case > > to use a lateral join, rendering the inner path not parallel-safe > > while also enforcing the join order. Please see attached. > > The modified test survives my testing procedure. Thank you for the patch! Thanks for testing this patch. I've pushed it. Thanks Richard
