From: | Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "Some tests to cover hash_index" |
Date: | 2016-09-19 15:14:37 |
Message-ID: | CAD__Oui56zrYz53ruS5TQSV8M=-yEiYZunqyHfUxRE7eGR3HhQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I wonder why you have included a new file for these tests, why can't be
these added to existing hash_index.sql.
tests in hash_index.sql did not cover overflow pages, above tests were for
mainly for them. So I thought having a separate test file can help
enabling/disabling them in schedule files, when we do not want them running
as it take slightly high time. If you think otherwise I will reconsider
will add tests to hash_index.sql.
>The relation name con_hash_index* choosen in above tests doesn't seem to
be appropriate, how about hash_split_heap* or something like that.
Fixed. Have renamed relation, index and test filename accordingly.
--
Thanks and Regards
Mithun C Y
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
commit-hash_coverage_test_v2_no_wal.patch | application/octet-stream | 7.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2016-09-19 15:16:21 | Re: Hash Indexes |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-19 12:58:35 | Re: PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process |