| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] pgstat: Add helper to drop entries from a stats kind's hash |
| Date: | 2026-11-02 14:42:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAN12+YKzZ2c_rc6xdux7Ppuh+zL+yOPBnfS2pEB6bMrtZK2BMA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Anyway, what do you think about the attached to address this hole in
> > the tests?
>
> LGTM and I don't see a strong case for backpatching.
The test looks good to me as well. I don't think it should be backpatched.
v5-0001 now includes the previously lost test.
v5-0002 is the same as v4, but without including the v5-0001 test and
using PGSTAT_KIND_INVALID instead of a new PGSTAT_KIND_ALL.
--
Sami
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v5-0001-test_custom_stats-Add-test-for-dropped-stats.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.7 KB |
| v5-0002-pgstat-Add-kind-filter-to-pgstat_drop_matching_en.patch | application/octet-stream | 9.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Raja Sai pranav | 2026-11-02 15:03:10 | Re: Incremental backup accepts a prior backup that extends past a timeline switch |
| Previous Message | Jeevan Chalke | 2026-11-02 14:20:56 | Re: PL/pgSQL: apply the too_many_rows extra check to EXECUTE ... INTO |