| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Yu Shi (Fujitsu)" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Test slots invalidations in 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl only if dead rows are removed |
| Date: | 2024-01-15 04:11:26 |
| Message-ID: | ZaSwbl4AYcHS-zzP@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 11:08:39PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
>> While thinking about that, a second idea came into my mind: a
>> superuser-settable developer GUC to disable such WAL records to be
>> generated within certain areas of the test. This requires a small
>> implementation, but nothing really huge, while being portable
>> everywhere. And it is not the first time I've been annoyed with these
>> records when wanting a predictible set of WAL records for some test
>> case.
>
> Hmm ... I see what you are after, but to what extent would this mean
> that what we are testing is not our real-world behavior?
Don't think so. We don't care much about these records when it comes
to checking slot invalidation scenarios with a predictible XID
horizon, AFAIK.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2024-01-15 05:00:00 | Re: Compile warnings in dbcommands.c building with meson |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-01-15 04:08:39 | Re: Test slots invalidations in 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl only if dead rows are removed |