| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Ryoga Yoshida <bt23yoshidar(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bug fix in vacuumdb --buffer-usage-limit xxx -Z |
| Date: | 2023-09-21 06:56:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvok_7zMMjDj-zcze+monKD8AQe5LpqgZ6U1PaPrvcnE8A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 17:59, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> That was fast. If I may ask, why don't you have some regression tests
> for the two code paths of vacuumdb that append this option to the
> commands generated for VACUUM and ANALYZE?
I think we have differing standards for what constitutes as a useful
test. For me, there would have to be a much higher likelihood of this
ever getting broken again.
I deem it pretty unlikely that someone will accidentally remove the
code that I just committed and a test to test that vacuumdb -Z
--buffer-usage-limit ... passes the BUFFER_USAGE_LIMIT option would
likely just forever mark that we once had a trivial bug that forgot to
include the --buffer-usage-limit when -Z was specified.
If others feel strongly that a test is worthwhile, then I'll reconsider.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-09-21 07:40:00 | Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node |
| Previous Message | Suraj Kharage | 2023-09-21 06:35:43 | Re: pg_upgrade --check fails to warn about abstime |