Hi, On 2024-10-30 12:45:27 -0400, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2024-10-30 13:29:01 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > On 30/10/2024 04:21, Andres Freund wrote: > > > Attached is a, unfortunately long, series of patches implementing what I > > > described upthread. > > > > Review of the preparatory patches: > > > > > 0001 Add very basic test for kill_prior_tuples > > > > > > We currently don't exercise this patch for gist and hash, which seems > > > somewhat criminal. > > > > Interesting to use the isolationtester for this. There's just one session, > > so you're just using it to define reusable steps with handy names. > > Yea. I had started out writing it as a pg_regress style test and it quickly > got very > hard to understand. > > > > I'm fine with that, but please add a comment to explain it. > > Makes sense. > > > > I wonder if it'd be more straightforward to make it a regular pg_regress > > test though. There would be some repetition, but would it be so bad? > > I found it to be quite bad. If testing just one AM it's ok-ish, but once you > test 2-3 it gets very long and repetitive. I guess we could use functions or > such to make it a bit less painful - but that point, is it actually simpler? > > > > You forgot to add the new test to 'isolation_schedule'. > > Oops. > > > typos: > > "inex" -> "index" > > "does something approximately reasonble" -> "do something approximately > > reasonable" > > Oops^2.
Pushed the test with these changes. Greetings, Andres Freund
