| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Additional logging for VACUUM and ANALYZE |
| Date: | 2017-12-04 20:27:16 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYDZ4A9FFHnJeEkwDbYoHGNegJdRH7SpCM17HMbANEUsA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Bossart, Nathan <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> On 12/1/17, 2:03 PM, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Thanks. I think this looks fine now, except that (1) it needs a
>> pgindent run and (2) I vote for putting the test case back. Michael
>> thought the test case was too much because this is so obscure, but I
>> think that's exactly why it needs a test case. Otherwise, somebody a
>> few years from now may not even be able to figure out how to hit this
>> message, and if it gets broken, we won't know. This code seems to be
>> fairly easy to break in subtle ways, so I think more test coverage is
>> good.
>
> Makes sense. I ran pgindent and re-added the test case for v6 of the
> patch.
Committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2017-12-04 20:33:08 | Re: [HACKERS] Additional logging for VACUUM and ANALYZE |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-04 20:26:08 | pgsql: When VACUUM or ANALYZE skips a concurrently dropped table, log i |