Hello Justin, It doesn't just rebase: it also removes the test which was failing on > windows > CI: > My apologies, I didn’t include it in the changelog since this is not a code change, just wanted to see if any other test would fail on the windows CI
I think the SELECT, when it works, is actually doing a seq scan and not > using > the index. On my PC, the index scan is used until an autovacuum/analyze > run, > after which it uses seqscan. I'm not sure how the other CIs all managed > to run > autovacuum between creating a table and running a query on it, though. This is genius! That explains it. I have been racking my brain for two weeks now and you figured it out. I guess you should first run the query with "explain (costs off)" to show > what > plan it's using, and add things like "SET enable_seqscan=off" as needed to > guarantee that everyone will use the same plan, regardless of minor cost > differences and vacuum timing. I think that will solve the test discrepancy. Honestly Justin, hats off! /Mark >
