Re: postgres_fdw: Add more test coverage for EvalPlanQual testing

From: Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postgres_fdw: Add more test coverage for EvalPlanQual testing
Date: 2025-11-06 03:39:05
Message-ID: CAPmGK16ghshhbM4mF1_+O2nUbKTgoJ0XD4+F-eyhep4Gk=J2FA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Nov 1, 2025 at 8:18 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> In [1] it was pointed out that there is no test coverage for
> postgresRecheckForeignScan. So I would like to propose to add test
> cases to cover that function (and related core functions like
> ForeignRecheck), as promised in that thread. Please find attached a
> patch. (Note that commit 12609fbac, which fixes an EPQ issue reported
> in [1], added a test case for ExecScanFetch(), but didn't add any test
> cases for that function.)
>
> In the patch I modified all permutations, including existing one, to
> use per-session setup doing "BEGIN ISOLATION LEVEL READ COMMITTED",
> for simplicity, and modified existing step names/comments a little bit
> to match new ones, for consistency.
>
> Like commit 12609fbac, I would also like to propose to back-patch this
> to all supported versions.

There seemed to be no objections, so pushed and back-patched.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Etsuro Fujita 2025-11-06 03:41:09 Re: Obsolete comment in ExecScanReScan()
Previous Message David Rowley 2025-11-06 03:35:43 Re: Teaching planner to short-circuit empty UNION/EXCEPT/INTERSECT inputs