Re: make -C src/test/isolation failure in index-killtuples due to btree_gist

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: make -C src/test/isolation failure in index-killtuples due to btree_gist
Date: 2025-10-28 07:55:49
Message-ID: aQB3BUxe23YiIOyx@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 07:46:43PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> That would be the easiest fix - but I'm starting to wonder if it shouldn't
> just be its own test module, as annoying as the boilerplate for that is.
>
> While the test improved code coverage for the various indexes noticeably, I
> did subsequently realize that the new test doesn't end up testing the recovery
> path :(. Better than nothing, but having any coverage of those paths might be
> worth the boilerplate and the runtime overhead of a test module :/

Adding just an EXTRA_INSTALL to isolation's Makefile would not work,
no? This Makefile has its own rules, which implies that fixing this
issue would be to duplicate what EXTRA_INSTALL does if we don't use
the test module solution. How about a new test/modules/gist/ then?
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Arkady Skvorcov 2025-10-28 08:11:09 [PATCH] Implement dynamic predicate lock ratio limits
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2025-10-28 07:32:20 Re: Add wal_fpi_bytes_[un]compressed to pg_stat_wal