| From: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Ivan Bykov <i(dot)bykov(at)modernsys(dot)ru>, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: IPC/MultixactCreation on the Standby server |
| Date: | 2025-12-05 18:36:42 |
| Message-ID: | 703E24ED-2E31-41E5-93FD-A48F3D8B70F2@yandex-team.ru |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 5 Dec 2025, at 21:36, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> It's good that the test was added. But it seems like it could be
> improved a bit. The problem is, it only runs successfully with a
> standard block size. Plus, the comment about the number of bytes was a
> bit unclear, for my taste. PFA patch, it should make this test pass
> with different block sizes.
Oh, great catch!
Other tests seem to extract block size using database query like
$primary->safe_psql('postgres',
"SELECT setting::int FROM pg_settings WHERE name = 'block_size';");
or
$blksize = int($node->safe_psql('postgres', 'SHOW block_size;'));
But here we do not have running cluster, so resorting to parsing pg_resetwal seems reasonable.
Thanks!
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2025-12-05 18:49:30 | Re: Tighten up range checks for pg_resetwal arguments |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2025-12-05 18:18:12 | Re: apply_scanjoin_target_to_paths and partitionwise join |