| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unit tests for SLRU |
| Date: | 2022-11-16 00:22:11 |
| Message-ID: | Y3QtM2/KfodfcnEj@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:39:20AM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> + /* write given data to the page */
> + strncpy(TestSlruCtl->shared->page_buffer[slotno], data, BLCKSZ - 1);
>
> Would it make sense to instead use pg_pwrite to closer match the code being
> tested?
Hmm. I am not exactly sure what we'd gain with that, as it would
imply that we need to write directly to the file using SlruFileName()
after doing ourselves a OpenTransientFile(), duplicating what
SlruPhysicalWritePage() does to create a fd to feed to a pg_pwrite()?
Or I misunderstood your point.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2022-11-16 00:23:14 | Re: allowing for control over SET ROLE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-11-16 00:15:15 | Re: Slow standby snapshot |