On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 04:46, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I wrote: > > I'd be inclined to undo what you did in favor of initializing the > > test tables to contain significantly different numbers of rows, > > because that would (a) achieve plan stability more directly, > > and (b) demonstrate that the planner is actually ordering the > > tables by cost correctly. Maybe somewhere else we have a test > > that is verifying (b), but these test cases abysmally fail to > > check that point. > > Concretely, I suggest the attached, which replaces the autovac disables > with adjusting partition boundaries so that the partitions contain > different numbers of rows.
I've looked over this and I agree that it's a better solution to the problem. I'm happy for you to go ahead on this. David
