From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add support for MERGE SQL command
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 18:12:59 -0400
Message-ID: <537759.1663625579@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1nYqfU-001lhQ-BJ@gemulon.postgresql.org>
References: <E1nYqfU-001lhQ-BJ@gemulon.postgresql.org>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Add support for MERGE SQL command
komodoensis just failed in a way that demonstrates instability of
the MERGE tests [1]. It looks to me like a background autovacuum
came along and processed one or both of ex_msource and ex_mtarget,
causing their default join plan to change to something else.
Probably an explicit ANALYZE would serve to stabilize that,
but it might end up with a slightly different plan than what
we have now. It's not clear if that matters?
I also wonder whether we'd need to re-analyze after each of the
explain_merge calls, because those are changing the tables
and hence potentially provoking background stats updates.
It might be better to change these to temp tables. You'd then
have to filter the temp schema out of the results; but since you
have a filtering function anyway, that doesn't seem too hard.
regards, tom lane
[1] https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=komodoensis&dt=2022-09-19%2011%3A32%3A56
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add support for MERGE SQL command
In-Reply-To: <537759.1663625579@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox