On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:08 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Also, I believe > >> that coding the test this way makes the leader send the param values to > >> multiple workers, which would flush out any problems with serializing a > >> value multiple times. As against that, there's a hazard that the number > >> of workers might not be stable ... > > > Yeah, I was actually more worried about instability part, but now I > > have tested it on both windows and centos machine and the test passes, > > so I am okay with that. However, I feel if we want to go with that, > > there is actually no need of statement "SET force_parallel_mode=1". > > OK, I hadn't tested to see if that could be dropped, but if it can, > then we don't need it. The EXPLAIN is enough to ensure that the > test is doing what we want. >
Right. > (I think we could drop the savepoint > too, no?) > One advantage of keeping the savepoint is that we don't need to explicitly drop the objects which we have created temporarily for this test. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com