Re: Some tests for TOAST, STORAGE MAIN/EXTENDED

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Nikhil Kumar Veldanda <veldanda(dot)nikhilkumar17(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Some tests for TOAST, STORAGE MAIN/EXTENDED
Date: 2026-01-26 00:33:09
Message-ID: aXa2RVzmwtxnlUC_@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jan 25, 2026 at 09:46:51AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 12:25:33AM -0800, Nikhil Kumar Veldanda wrote:
>> The `SELECT count(*) FROM :reltoastname` assertion is a bit brittle
>> for `STORAGE EXTENDED`: depending on the toast compression method /
>> effectiveness, the value may end up as >1 chunk, which would flip the
>> expected count(*) = 1. Prefer SELECT count(DISTINCT chunk_id) FROM
>> :reltoastname (or WHERE chunk_seq = 0) and adjust expected.
>
> Yeah, this suggestion sounds sensible and that would still notice what
> I was able to break.

I have settled down to the addition of a qual based on chunk_seq,
being consistent with the other test, at the end, then applied the
result as 168765e5d42b. Thanks for the suggestions, Nikhil.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Chen 2026-01-26 00:41:34 Re: [PATCH] Avoid potential NULL dereference in LIKE/ILIKE with C locale
Previous Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2026-01-25 23:38:15 Re: Safer hash table initialization macro