Andrey Borodin <amborodi...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 8:07 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> Turns out the problem is that we don't reach deletion for hash and gist
>> vacuum:
> GiST logs deletions in gistXLogUpdate(), which is covered.
> gistXLogDelete() is only used for cleaning during page splits. I'd
> propose refactoring GiST WAL to remove gistXLogDelete() and using
> gistXLogUpdate() instead.
> However I see that gistXLogPageDelete() is not exercised, and is worth
> fixing IMO. Simply adding 10x more data in gist.sql helps, but I think
> we can do something more clever...
See also the thread about bug #16329 [1]. Alexander promised to look
into improving the test coverage in this area, maybe he can keep an
eye on the WAL logic coverage too.
regards, tom lane
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/16329-7a6aa9b6fa1118a1%40postgresql.org
