On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 23:05, Amit Khandekar wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 13:54, David Rowley wrote:
> > I've attached a patch to do this. The explain.c part is pretty similar
> > to your patch, I just took my original code and comment.
>
> Sounds good. And thanks for the cleanup patch, and
On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 13:54, David Rowley wrote:
> So, given that I removed the parallel test in partition_prune.sql, and
> don't have any EXPLAIN ANALYZE output for parallel tests in
> resultcache.sql, it should be safe enough to put that cache_misses ==
> 0 test back into explain.c
>
> I've at
On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 16:14, David Rowley wrote:
> However, I did add 1 test that sets work_mem down to 64kB to ensure
> the eviction code does get some exercise. You'll notice that I pass
> "true" to explain_resultcache() to hide the hits and misses there. We
> can't test the exact number of hi
On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 21:38, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 1:54 PM David Rowley wrote:
> > I plan to push this in the next 24 hours or so.
>
> I happen to see explain_resultcache in resultcache.sql, seems like two
> of the tests still have numbers for cache hits and misses
On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 15:08, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 1:54 PM David Rowley wrote:
> > I plan to push this in the next 24 hours or so.
>
> I happen to see explain_resultcache in resultcache.sql, seems like two
> of the tests still have numbers for cache hits and misses
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 1:54 PM David Rowley wrote:
> I plan to push this in the next 24 hours or so.
I happen to see explain_resultcache in resultcache.sql, seems like two
of the tests still have numbers for cache hits and misses - Hits: 980
Misses: 20, won't these make tests unstable? Will thes
On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 00:39, Amit Khandekar wrote:
> If planned parallel workers do not get launched, the Result Cache plan
> node shows all-0 stats for each of those workers:
Thanks for reporting this and for the patch.
You're right that there is a problem here. I did in fact have code to
skip
