On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:19 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:55 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > I was working on expanding tests for AIO and as part of that wrote a test > > for > > temp tables -- our coverage is fairly awful, there were many times during > > AIO > > development where I knew I had trivially reachable temp table specific bugs > > but all tests passed. > > > > The test for that does trigger the problem described above and is fixed by > > the > > patches in this thread (which I included in the other thread): > > Thanks. Alright, I'm assuming that you don't have any objections to > the way I restyled that API, so I'm going to go ahead and push some of > these shortly, and then follow up with a few newer patches that > simplify and improve the look-ahead and advice control. More very > soon.
Ugh, I realised in another round of self-review that that version could exceed the soft limit by a small amount if the registered callback pins more buffers underneath it, so not pushed yet. I think I see how to fix that (namely the alternative design that a comment already contemplated), more soon...
