Hi, Ed
refer to cloudberry :
https://github.com/apache/cloudberry/blob/1.5.4/.github/workflows/build.yml
```c++
icw-orca-test:
    needs: build
    runs-on: [self-hosted, example]
    env:
      MAKE_TEST_COMMAND: "-k PGOPTIONS='-c optimizer=on' installcheck-world"
      TEST_OS: "centos"
      DUMP_DB: "true"
```
Here explicitly set PGOPTIONS='-c optimizer=on'.


Ed Espino <eesp...@gmail.com> 于2024年11月21日周四 15:00写道:

> Please: you can call me Ed (艾德)
>
> I thought Orca (optimizer) was enabled by default. Is that not the case
> with Cloudberry?
>
> -=e
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 10:51 PM 杨江华 <yjhj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Espino,
> >
> > I found that ic-good-opt-on pipeline failed to explain. You can set
> > PGOPTIONS='-c
> > optimizer=on' explicitly. Hope to solve this.
> >
> > Thank you for your time and support.
> >
> >
> > Ed Espino <esp...@apache.org> 于2024年11月21日周四 12:40写道:
> >
> > > I've identified a solution for running our previously disabled test
> > suites
> > > (
> > > cbdb_parallel and instr_in_shmem_verify) in the GitHub Actions CI
> > > environment. By increasing the container shared memory using the
> > > --shm-size=2gb parameter, these test suites are now passing
> consistently.
> > >
> > > I'm currently conducting additional testing to verify the stability of
> > this
> > > solution. You can review the test results here:
> > >
> > >    - https://github.com/edespino/cloudberry/actions/runs/11944371481
> > >    - https://github.com/edespino/cloudberry/actions/runs/11943779438
> > >    - https://github.com/edespino/cloudberry/actions/runs/11943000112
> > >
> > > However, I've noticed some inconsistencies in other test suites during
> > this
> > > investigation. I would appreciate if you all could review these results
> > and
> > > provide feedback on the increased shared memory solution and any
> insights
> > > into the inconsistent test results observed in other suites.
> > > Thank you,
> > > -=e
> > > --
> > > Ed Espino
> > > Apache Cloudberry (incubating) & MADlib
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ed Espino
>

Reply via email to