Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 18:34:09 -0700
To: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>,
	Floris Van Nee <florisvannee@optiver.com>,
	Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>,
	Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1213@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: MDAM techniques and Index Skip Scan patch
Message-ID: <20220322013409.pulftoeifixo76wc@alap3.anarazel.de>
[IFrom: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220122213719.bshzifnx4p5geozy@erthalion.local>
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
List-Id: <pgsql-hackers.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-hackers>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220322013409.pulftoeifixo76wc%40alap3.anarazel.de>
Precedence: bulk

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/regression.diffs
https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5134905372835840

Greetings,

Andres Freund