Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jLYZi-000236-RJ for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 20:42:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jLYZh-0003Cb-Pb for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 20:42:29 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jLYZh-0003CU-If for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 20:42:29 +0000 Received: from mail-wm1-x344.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::344]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jLYZe-0003D8-Ql for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 20:42:28 +0000 Received: by mail-wm1-x344.google.com with SMTP id d202so952095wmd.1 for ; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 13:42:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=2ndquadrant-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=cRLoFSg9FQZxbtA711AGsQFGtcBZ/tsqAKNrxyKVGVc=; b=cJ87Ul1x9Oj2pvJMrnbj+d4AjSuZ4sGAluLiCxz00wMmsvgh7qwf+W/9n9njZTYtme A6W3luaB9EocsKFzD/T0+ze3fhMOTDJzg2PzARRfAvZBQYqvDg3vG+4mAicq5HfSzybh la+ZIpZqEaKlgw0mql/iyNC56RMQD/hcJwfCMTEYDriIZpbA+/zH6yGzQi2G1bmOhgk4 iT2mhcV/lEmONaHKYa90dUH0QixQ4EGoioGSusFF2AogaMFsGt1AWdAjqGuJB1kVTVtJ 7dBXRBvUSS2qF6vx0GKP8XmhID/+YuD5x8BEGJyv9RWHWvRfLZsv8s3lFcE1t7ewKvXg Laag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=cRLoFSg9FQZxbtA711AGsQFGtcBZ/tsqAKNrxyKVGVc=; b=nalx2vB+GR97NSsHm03aoUbTwqOSlNHdweBd9TW5cvkzKGzFp7PNUi4aVKCb6NXlrq iVhYL+yjcUGuGORKF0tF5r+aY2C8tFCAgv2twT5cLCHsBItTvFZtXlg+PLW3qAtFGZ2P lWTo+kAsdUuYMpEUF0oRqfDg5YVed6ZuoacI2GWTdvPcgyU+nygAG7xo8u7la8hceXp+ cUkbAr1E1d3lusNwwdubU12Mfq0whP3FmsW+3pvOweZ8gYohpjimS9MLpPoHmhnfZ+1Z f3GQ3NzaO2O+kquNT5X7ShwjpkUG8vqWLP6HRZicEYhr81cNK+WryBxuJ++UH9q/OMX6 +WXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pub3BhomPufIO6iP+Ew7usLM5RURpKUW3rHMr9mk5BM8DvXkltgk g7vr4EMqjjKda5XOL696zTNofQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIEORMpSgO1OaJLiIwsDEzs7NYxcbEUhVpFGq8SP29YGNAegnRDDVvv2RjbsTdNUmyESfbvcQ== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:195:: with SMTP id 143mr907191wmb.0.1586205745239; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 13:42:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-86-49-253-141.net.upcbroadband.cz. [86.49.253.141]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m21sm915082wmc.6.2020.04.06.13.42.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 06 Apr 2020 13:42:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 22:42:22 +0200 From: Tomas Vondra To: Tom Lane Cc: James Coleman , Alvaro Herrera , Michael Paquier , Rafia Sabih , Peter Geoghegan , Simon Riggs , Shaun Thomas , Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>, Alexander Korotkov , PostgreSQL Developers , Andreas Karlsson Subject: Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) Message-ID: <20200406204222.4ulowvv3yzwkivgk@development> References: <20200402024746.5wlwk6q7eiv5faux@development> <20200403002028.kp3rxncmwvsui6xz@development> <20200405130110.2bdxaz4ed5jx2eae@development> <20200406195722.teiha6foiy3lix3s@development> <20200406201145.ig56cdzrkt4u5mou@development> <5595.1586204078@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5595.1586204078@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 04:14:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >Tomas Vondra writes: >> Hmmm, I see the buildfarm is not happy about it - a couple of animals >> failed, but some succeeded. The failure seems like a simple difference >> in explain output, but it's not clear why would it happen (and I've >> ran the tests many times but never seen this failure). > >Did you ever use force_parallel_mode = regress? > Ah, not sure - probably not in this round of tests and there were some changes in the explain code. Thanks for the hint. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services