Hi,
On 4/1/23 1:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2023-03-31 17:00:00 +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
31.03.2023 15:55, Tom Lane wrote:
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.
Yes, I'm going to analyze that area too. Maybe it'll take more time
(a week or two) if I encounter some bugs there (for now I observe anomalies
with gist__int_ops), but I will definitely try to improve the gist testing.
Because I needed it to verify the changes in the referenced patch, I wrote
tests exercising killtuples based pruning for gist and hash.
Thanks for the patch!
I did not looked at the detail but "just" checked that the coverage is now done.
And Indeed, when running "make check" + "027_stream_regress.pl":
I can see it moving from (without the patch):
function gistXLogDelete called 0 returned 0% blocks executed 0%
function gistRedoDeleteRecord called 0 returned 0% blocks executed 0%
function gistprunepage called 0 returned 0% blocks executed 0%
function _hash_vacuum_one_page called 0 returned 0% blocks executed 0%
to (with the patch):
function gistXLogDelete called 9 returned 100% blocks executed 100%
function gistRedoDeleteRecord called 5 returned 100% blocks executed 100%
(thanks to 027_stream_regress.pl)
function gistprunepage called 9 returned 100% blocks executed 79%
function _hash_vacuum_one_page called 12 returned 100% blocks executed 94%
For now I left the new tests in their own files. But possibly they should be
in gist.sql and hash_index.sql respectively?
+1 to put them in gist.sql and hash_index.sql.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
