| From: | Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Adam Berlin <aberlin(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Alexandra Wang <lewang(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
| Subject: | Re: Comment in ginpostinglist.c doesn't match code |
| Date: | 2019-08-22 22:05:08 |
| Message-ID: | CALfoeiv2aS4yL1N_jKuvRcHCgSWJ0syHoaJ8zfRfCb93AJKb9g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:14 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>
> The patch also includes a little unit test module to test this without
> creating a 16 TB table. A whole new test module seems a bit like
> overkill just for this, but clearly we were missing test coverage here.
> And it will come handy, if we want to invent a new better posting list
> format in the future. Thoughts on whether to include the test module or
> not?
>
I like the test as importantly adds missing coverage. Also, really
simplifies validation effort if required to make change in this area
anytime in future. So, I would +1 keeping the same.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-08-23 01:53:16 | Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps |
| Previous Message | Soumyadeep Chakraborty | 2019-08-22 21:52:06 | Infinite wait for SyncRep while handling USR1 |