Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wAEYh-002Bmi-16 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2026 22:06:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wAEYf-002mFF-21 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2026 22:06:06 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wAEYf-002mF7-16 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2026 22:06:05 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wAEYd-00000001BjM-1Vm7 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2026 22:06:05 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 637M5lLZ2672941; Tue, 7 Apr 2026 18:05:47 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Alexander Lakhin , Lukas Fittl , PostgreSQL Hackers , Nathan Bossart , Melanie Plageman , "heikki.linnakangas" Subject: Re: pg_plan_advice In-reply-to: References: <1299934.1773938807@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3683430.1775173413@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3817825.1775240432@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3877210.1775272486@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Tue, 07 Apr 2026 17:21:19 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2672939.1775599547.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2026 18:05:47 -0400 Message-ID: <2672940.1775599547@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Robert Haas writes: > 0001 and 0002 implement the "retry a few times" idea for avoiding > test_plan_advice failures. I argue that (a) these are reasonable > post-commit stabilization that should not be blocked by feature freeze > and (b) most people here will be happier with a solution like this > that will normally cost very little than they will be with switching > test_plan_advice to executing serially. The RMT can decide whether it > agrees. I'm not on the RMT, but I agree this is a nicer solution. (I didn't read these patches in detail, but in a quick once-over they seemed plausible.) > The other question here is whether it's really a good idea to > apply this now considering that we've seen only one failure so far. I > think it's probably a good idea to do something like this before > release, so that we hopefully reduce the false positive rate from the > test to something much closer to zero, but I think we've still had > only the one failure, and I'm really interested in knowing how close > the failure rate is to zero already. The RMT may have an opinion on > how long to wait before doing something like this, too. No strong opinion about that. Certainly waiting a couple of weeks to gather more data seems reasonable. regards, tom lane