On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 1:08 AM Bertrand Drouvot <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 01:18:38PM -0700, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2025 at 11:52 PM Bertrand Drouvot > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Could we also imagine that there are other activities enough to reach the > > > memory > > > limit and transactions are not aborted, meaning spill_txns and/or > > > spill_count are > 0? > > > > > > In that case we may want to get rid of this test instead (as checking > > > spill_txns >=0 > > > and spill_count >=0 would not really reflect the intend of this test). > > > > It makes sense to me to make an assumption that there are no > > concurrent activities that are capturable by logical decoding during > > this test. So I think we don't need to care about that case. On the > > other hand, under this assumption, it also makes sense to check it > > with the exact number. I've chosen >0 as we can achieve the same goal > > while being more flexible for potential future changes. I'm open to > > other suggestions though. > > >0 is fine by me. I was just wondering about spill_txns and spill_count too. > > That could sound weird that we are confident for spill_txns and spill_count > to rely on the exact values and not for the new field. That said, I agree that > >0 is more flexible for potential future changes (in the sense that this one > is more likely to change in its implementation). In short, I'm fine with your > proposal.
Thank you for the comment. I've noted this discussion as a comment in the new tests. I've attached the updated version patch. Please review it. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
v7-0001-Add-mem_exceeded_count-column-to-pg_stat_replicat.patch
Description: Binary data
