Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> I'm not entirely sure what to do about this. We could back-patch that >> patch into 9.0 and 9.1, but it's conceivable somebody would squawk about >> planner behavioral changes. The only other idea that seems practical is >> to remove regression test cases that have platform-specific results in >> those branches. Probably that wouldn't result in a real reduction in the >> quality of the test coverage for those branches (we could still execute >> the query, just not EXPLAIN it). But it seems like a pretty ad-hoc >> answer, and the next case might be one that hurts more not to test. >> >> Thoughts?
> Have an alternate file for those other cases, rather than remove the > test? The complaint was about one buildfarm member, so hopefully that's > practical and doesn't require a lot of different permutations. I considered that but don't find it practical or attractive, especially not if the only way to keep such a file updated is to wait and see whether the buildfarm complains. On the whole I'm leaning towards back-patching 33e99153e. While the case of exactly equal plan costs does come up in the regression tests (which tend to inspect plans for queries on small simple tables), I think it's relatively unlikely to happen with real-world data. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers