On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 6:00 AM, Andrew Dunstan < andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Pavan Deolasee > <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> I would probably just have a few regression lines that should be sure > >> to exercise the code path and leave it at that. > >> > > > > I changed the regression tests to include a few more scenarios, basically > > using multi-column indexes in different ways and they querying rows by > > ordering rows in different ways. I did not take away the vacuum and I > > believe it will actually help the tests by introducing some fuzziness in > the > > tests i.e. if the vacuum does not do its job, we might execute a > different > > plan and ensure that the output remains unchanged. > > > > > If we're going to keep the vacuums in there, do we need to add a wait > barrier like Claudio suggested upthread? > > I don't think we need the wait barrier since we're no longer printing the explain plan. In the worst case, the vacuum may not get to set pages all-visible, thus planner choosing something other than an index-only-scan, but I guess that fuzziness actually helps the regression tests. That way we get confirmation regarding the final result irrespective of the plan chosen. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
