From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: Floris Van Nee <florisvannee@optiver.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>
Cc: Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1213@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: MDAM techniques and Index Skip Scan patch
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 18:34:09 -0700
Message-ID: <20220322013409.pulftoeifixo76wc@alap3.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220122213719.bshzifnx4p5geozy@erthalion.local>
References: <CAH2-WzmUscvoxVkokHxP=uPTDjSi0tJkFpUPD-CeA35dvn-CMw@mail.gmail.com>
<2f26e1e475364ab7b23f466e4a4f4392@opammb0562.comp.optiver.com>
<20220113103612.k6lzyq6b3lhoocbq@jrouhaud>
<25e9af19f3374cb7ad05a692f616a3ab@opammb0562.comp.optiver.com>
<20220114075526.ws5ooqgqhrin25ku@erthalion.local>
<20220114080341.lcgktzdl4dgxfg2t@jrouhaud>
<20220122213719.bshzifnx4p5geozy@erthalion.local>
Hi,
On 2022-01-22 22:37:19 +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 04:03:41PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 08:55:26AM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > >
> > > FYI, I've attached this thread to the CF item as an informational one,
> > > but as there are some patches posted here, folks may get confused. For
> > > those who have landed here with no context, I feel obliged to mention
> > > that now there are two alternative patch series posted under the same
> > > CF item:
> > >
> > > * the original one lives in [1], waiting for reviews since the last May
> > > * an alternative one posted here from Floris
> >
> > Ah, I indeed wasn't sure of which patchset(s) should actually be reviewed.
> > It's nice to have the alternative approach threads linkied in the commit fest,
> > but it seems that the cfbot will use the most recent attachments as the only
> > patchset, thus leaving the "original" one untested.
> >
> > I'm not sure of what's the best approach in such situation. Maybe creating a
> > different CF entry for each alternative, and link the other cf entry on the cf
> > app using the "Add annotations" or "Links" feature rather than attaching
> > threads?
>
> I don't mind having all of the alternatives under the same CF item, only
> one being tested seems to be only a small limitation of cfbot.
IMO it's pretty clear that having "duelling" patches below one CF entry is a
bad idea. I think they should be split, with inactive approaches marked as
returned with feeback or whatnot.
Either way, currently this patch fails on cfbot due to a new GUC:
https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/artifact/task/5134905372835840/log/src/test/recovery/tmp_check/regressi...https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5134905372835840
Greetings,
Andres Freund
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-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: andres@anarazel.de, 9erthalion6@gmail.com, rjuju123@gmail.com, florisvannee@optiver.com, pg@bowt.ie, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jesper.pedersen@redhat.com, zhihui.fan1213@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: MDAM techniques and Index Skip Scan patch
In-Reply-To: <20220322013409.pulftoeifixo76wc@alap3.anarazel.de>
* 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