| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUG] FailedAssertion in SnapBuildPurgeOlderTxn |
| Date: | 2022-11-23 02:59:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+oAkz+n=KkrFxaQ-6ZDFNHW_+b-RPeQs=fp+BAt_2vpg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:33 PM Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Regarding the tests, the patch includes a new scenario to
>> reproduce this issue. However, since the issue can be reproduced also
>> by the existing scenario (with low probability, though), I'm not sure
>> it's worth adding the new scenario.
>
> AFAICS, the test added doesn't 100% reproduce this issue, so, maybe, it does not worth it. But, I do not have a strong opinion here.
> Let's add tests in a separate commit and let the actual committer to decide what to do, should we?
>
+1 to not have a test for this as the scenario can already be tested
by the existing set of tests.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-11-23 03:11:33 | Re: Logical Replication Custom Column Expression |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2022-11-23 02:52:22 | Re: ssl tests aren't concurrency safe due to get_free_port() |