| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: longfin and tamandua aren't too happy but I'm not sure why |
| Date: | 2022-09-28 19:20:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20220928192015.eqtj4kdc7cjxykjw@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-Sep-28, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> It would be useful if there were generic tests that caught issues like
> this. There are various subtle effects related to how struct layout
> can impact WAL record size that might easily be missed. It's not like
> there are a huge number of truly critical WAL records to have tests
> for.
What do you think would constitute a test here?
Say: insert N records to a heapam table with one index of each kind
(under controlled conditions: no checkpoint, no autovacuum, no FPIs),
then measure the total number of bytes used by WAL records of each rmgr.
Have a baseline and see how that changes over time.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-09-28 19:22:26 | Re: longfin and tamandua aren't too happy but I'm not sure why |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2022-09-28 19:09:46 | Re: predefined role(s) for VACUUM and ANALYZE |