Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 23:12:32 +0200
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com>,
	Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Shaun Thomas <shaun.thomas@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>,
	Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>,
	PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
Message-ID: <20200406211232.35s2gmygrfx3ljrj@development>
References: <19920.1586206115@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20200406205438.GA30063@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200406205438.GA30063@alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 04:54:38PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>On 2020-Apr-06, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Locally, things pass without force_parallel_mode, but turning it on
>> produces failures that look similar to rhinoceros's (didn't examine
>> other BF members).
>
>FWIW I looked at the eight failures there were about fifteen minutes ago
>and they were all identical.  I can confirm that, in my laptop, the
>tests work without that GUC, and fail in exactly that way with it.
>

Yes, there's a thinko in show_incremental_sort_info() and it returns too
soon. I'll push a fix in a minute.


thanks

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services