On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 7:30 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > Hah. Yeah, when you can do things like that and the tests don't break, > that indicates a problem in the tests.
I *think* the problem is actually in the code, not the tests. In other words, from what I can tell, we copy the bogus timeline value (0, or a random number) into several places, but then eventually overwrite all copies of that value with a correct value before using it for anything. So in other words I think that the comment saying that this code is initializing values that WalSndSegmentOpen is going to need is just wrong. I don't completely understand why it's wrong, but I think it IS wrong. > > Istm we should introduce an InvalidTimeLineID, and explicitly initialize > > sendTimeLine to that, and assert that it's valid / invalid in a bunch of > > places? > > That's not a bad idea; it'll help discover bogus code. Obviously, some > additional tests wouldn't harm -- we have a lot more coverage now than > in embarrasingly recent past, but it can still be improved. +1. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
