Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid

Hi,

On 3/16/26 14:44, Hüseyin Demir wrote:
>
> David Steele <david(at)pgbackrest(dot)org>, 6 Mar 2026 Cum, 16:01 tarihinde şunu yazdı:
>>
>> On 3/6/26 14:05, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 3:15 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 12:04:00AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>>> Thanks for the patch! It looks good to me. Barring any objections, I
>>>>> will commit it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> I've pushed the patch. Thanks!
>>
>> Thank you and great idea on ALTER SYSTEM. I've been hesitant to add more
>> tests in this area because they are so expensive but now I feel much
>> better about it. But that's the last for this CF since there is more
>> important stuff to be done.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -David
>
> I tried to create tests with the ALTER SYSTEM approach to validate the GUC.
>
> You can review it if it's the correct approach or not. We can create a
> new CF record if required for the patch.

I modified the tests in the patch to use ALTER SYSTEM and that was
committed at [1].

One of the tests (bogus) you have added here is a duplicate but the
other one (upper bound) could be added.

You appear to be working against an old version of the master branch so
I would recommend rebasing and then add your upper bound test following
the test pattern we have already established.

I personally don't think the upper bound test adds a lot of value here
since it is handled by strtou64() just like the bogus test so it will
not extend coverage, but I'm fine with it if others are.

Regards,
-David

[1]
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/bffd7130e942e2bd45153ab09e5fab70e74ece58.