On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Andrew Borodin <boro...@octonica.com> wrote: > 2017-06-13 18:00 GMT+05:00 Shubham Barai <shubhambara...@gmail.com>:
> Good job! +1! :-) > So, in current HEAD test predicate_gist_2.spec generate false > positives, but with your patch, it does not? Keep in mind, that false positives do not break *correctness* of serializable transactions as long as it involves another transaction. (It *would* be a bug if a transaction running alone could cause a serialization failure.) A false *negative* is always a bug. That said, false positives hurt performance, so we should keep the rate as low as practicable. > I'd suggest keeping spec tests with your code in the same branch, it's > easier. +1 > Also it worth to clean up specs style and add some words to > documentation. +1 > Kevin, all, how do you think, is it necessary to expand these tests > not only on Index Only Scan, but also on Bitmap Index Scan? And may be > KNN version of scan too? > I couldn't find such tests for B-tree, do we have them? Off-hand, I don't know. It would be interesting to run regression tests with code coverage and look at the index AMs. https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/regress-coverage.html -- Kevin Grittner VMware vCenter Server https://www.vmware.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
