Re: regression coverage gaps for gist and hash indexes

From: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrey Borodin <amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: regression coverage gaps for gist and hash indexes
Date: 2023-03-31 14:00:00
Message-ID: 2678d2b3-279e-aed8-df20-333fe838f930@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

Best regards,
Alexander

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Melanie Plageman 2023-03-31 14:31:10 Re: Should vacuum process config file reload more often
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2023-03-31 13:57:41 Re: POC: Lock updated tuples in tuple_update() and tuple_delete()