MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CA+TgmoZ-Jh1T6QyWoCODMVQdhTUPYkaZjWztzP1En4=ZHoKPzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYjcBA6dw3nwiyfDzPXTCrxTZPXDMrc2TrDJcL1cPK6iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYru-vxoTKfwjQby30r2OkTXfb18Km_=VLs6qk8Akr0-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+Tgmoau7yJtvbeH-0kPt1Q=Gt_ezRdgM35Q1=LT665U_86Etg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1299934.1773938807@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmobOLrMn5jEinWNPL5SrDH1DPpo3a4j+S6-4yhsZwWgzLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoZUN8FT1Ah=m6Uis5bHa4FUa+_hMDWtcABG17toEfpiUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYh2-kM+tscOz=jVYq9Tf4SRPVqzPojs3KLZcW6E9m1BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoaK=4w7-qknUo3QhUJ53pXZq=c=KgZmRyD+k7ytqfmgSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP53Pkz3DSFaaowYvbO5LULf3NhydD_UhHkighfWf6_pwxiqUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoZ45n5jaNKKgbbj4-kYV8WsPvUn=Z8HnoZ7tUb_p9WKXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYuWmN-00Ec5pY7zAcpSFQUQLbgAdVWGR9kOR-HM-fHrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP53Pkzn_wZ-R-cPdD9XSQ9+myPUUsPMMqVBPNG3XWXhgfm1-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+Tgmobxbju8PrY_NULtPr7b7UShp4+Jqibm2Bou8TVS69gObQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3683430.1775173413@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoazotFpQfGL=eTAZsFQd-_W8nVOG4oDyx5PFkDpH3_Pzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoadkuOMJjvYe2h6aznHFeePprGEQ8CgUpRK=47sB6DMAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3817825.1775240432@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <3817825.1775240432@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2026 20:14:49 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CA+TgmoY+g1u-fN=3igXG-8u0Ho3V4u-ooWXCj-FQ9DA=uGek9g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pg_plan_advice
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoY%2Bg1u-fN%3D3igXG-8u0Ho3V4u-ooWXCj-FQ9DA%3DuGek9g%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 2:20=E2=80=AFPM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> However, eyeing the calendar, I think the only options that are likely
> to be stabilizable before feature freeze are (1a) run the test scripts
> serially for test_plan_advice or (3a) throw test_plan_advice away.
> I know you don't want to do (3a) and I understand why not.  How much
> will (1a) slow things down?

I don't know. For me, the speed of the regression tests is rarely a
bottleneck, and they run on my machine in about 12 seconds. But on
slow buildfarm machines, I'm guessing it's going to extend the runtime
significantly. But I also feel like if we've only seen one buildfarm
failure since the last round of stabilization, it might not be a
catastrophe if nothing further is done before feature freeze. In fact,
I think it might be *good*. Given the apparently-low failure rate that
we now have, it feels to me like we might want to run like this for a
month or even or two or three to get a clearer feeling for whether the
failure you saw is the only one or whether, perhaps, there are others.
Or even just how often this one happens. I mean, I'm also not that
opposed to having it made serial now if you really think that's
better. But what concerns me is I feel like we might inconvenience a
lot of people who really care about the tests running fast while at
the same time eliminating our ability to gather any more information
about the problem.

I mean, there is possibly an argument that we don't really need to
gather any more information about the problem; it does seem like we
understand what is going on here, and if we had a great, simple fix I
would probably just apply it and be done with it. But I also don't
quite understand why you're in such a rush. If we still feel like
running the tests serially is the best solution in a month, can't we
just do it then?

--=20
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com