| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Additional logging for VACUUM and ANALYZE |
| Date: | 2017-12-01 20:03:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobH17W=WdduhXJhxdwHAeTazNp7MDP=k0p=2w1nuSSruw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Bossart, Nathan <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks for the review, Robert. I've attached a new version that
> addresses your feedback.
Thanks. I think this looks fine now, except that (1) it needs a
pgindent run and (2) I vote for putting the test case back. Michael
thought the test case was too much because this is so obscure, but I
think that's exactly why it needs a test case. Otherwise, somebody a
few years from now may not even be able to figure out how to hit this
message, and if it gets broken, we won't know. This code seems to be
fairly easy to break in subtle ways, so I think more test coverage is
good.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-01 20:28:00 | Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-12-01 19:48:59 | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods |