Re: Change checkpoint‑record‑missing PANIC to FATAL

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Change checkpoint‑record‑missing PANIC to FATAL
Date: 2026-07-21 22:28:31
Message-ID: al_yj0kT9fxLGeCj@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 04:17:17PM +0530, Nitin Jadhav wrote:
> I don't think that's necessary anymore. Those helpers were primarily
> introduced to support the second test, and with the revised approach I
> don't see a strong reason to make the changes. Unless you think there
> is independent value in the cleanup itself.

Nay. At this point I am happy with the state of the test on HEAD. If
there is a need for a refactoring piece in the future, we could always
reconsider this piece at a later point.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2026-07-21 22:35:01 Re: [PATCH v1] Add vacuum_delay_point() to GiST empty-page deletion pass
Previous Message Zsolt Parragi 2026-07-21 22:27:58 Re: SLOPE - Planner optimizations on monotonic expressions.