Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 09:49:01 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>,
	Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>,
	"heikki.linnakangas" <heikki.linnakangas@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: pg_plan_advice
Message-ID: <adZq3Rlxq3v916aG@nathan>
References: 
 <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+Tgmoad!kuOMJjvYe2h6aznHFeePprGEQ8CgUpRK=47sB6DMAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3817825.1775240432@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoY+g1u-fN=3igXG-8u0Ho3V4u-ooWXCj-FQ9DA=uGek9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <3877210.1775272486@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmobOOmmXSJz3e+cjTY-bA1+W0dqVDqzxUBEvGtW62whYGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2672940.1775599547@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2672940.1775599547@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/adZq3Rlxq3v916aG%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 07, 2026 at 06:05:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> 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.

I am only 1/3 of the RMT, but I am fine with the plan as stated.

-- 
nathan