Re: Invalid remote sampling test in postgres_fdw.

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Invalid remote sampling test in postgres_fdw.
Date: 2025-09-01 00:05:52
Message-ID: aLTjYOX9r8gxOEVC@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 08:58:47AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I would suggest waiting a bit for the resolution of the other bug, and
> make sure that we have at least one reference to the trick with the DO
> block. While the way you are writing the test is more readable,
> there's also a case for keeping documented this trick in the tree in
> the shape of a SQL sequence that does not depend on \gset and psql.

I was looking again an this thread, and this argument feels a bit off
because we have a test already posted on the thread, and there would
be some past history. There is also the ease of debugging failures
when the commands fail in the DO block. At the end, applied 0002 on
HEAD.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2025-09-01 00:16:42 Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
Previous Message Lukas Fittl 2025-08-31 23:57:01 Stack-based tracking of per-node WAL/buffer usage