From: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables |
Date: | 2019-01-31 15:47:53 |
Message-ID: | CACPNZCsccAZs-VVLi4ZNtCe4mQP46xQgmo9_rgjMVmpXcW_E7g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 4:06 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't think that moving fsm tests to brin would be a good approach.
> We want to have a separate test for each access method. I think if we
> want to do something to avoid portability issues, maybe we can do what
> Masahiko San has just suggested.
We could also use the same plpgsql loop as in fsm.sql to check the ctid, right?
> OTOH, I think we are just good w.r.t
> this issue with the last patch I sent. I think unless we see some
> problem here, we should put energy into having a reproducible test for
> the fourth problem mentioned in my mail up thread [1]. Do you think
> it makes sense to run make check in loop for multiple times or do you
> have any idea how we can have a reproducible test?
Okay. Earlier I tried running make installcheck with
force_parallel_mode='regress', but didn't get a failure. I may not
have run enough times, though. I'll have to think about how to induce
it.
--
John Naylor https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-01-31 15:54:58 | Re: MERGE SQL statement for PG12 |
Previous Message | Dmitry Dolgov | 2019-01-31 15:45:26 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting |