Re: Bug in logical decoding with DDL and subtransactions

From: "alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de" <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>
To: Zhijie Hou <houzhijie22(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Bingshuai Li <lucian1412(at)outlook(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com" <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrey Rachitskiy <pl0h0yp1(at)gmail(dot)com>, "a(dot)kozhemyakin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru" <a(dot)kozhemyakin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: Bug in logical decoding with DDL and subtransactions
Date: 2026-10-07 14:25:40
Message-ID: asZPa_bVpP7yCVr5@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello

I think the tuplecid.sql test is rather brute-force-ish, and I'm not
sure we need it. To verify that I ran the tests with it and without it,
and compared the difference in the HTML coverage report. I see no
additional extra lines marked as covered with the tuplecid.sql left in
place, which I take to mean to support my hypothesis. I suggest we
throw it away and keep only the two isolation tests.

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Las cosas son buenas o malas segun las hace nuestra opinión" (Lisias)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Geier 2026-10-07 14:34:01 Re: [PATCH v1] Batch B-tree TIDs when building a bitmap
Previous Message Tatsuya Kawata 2026-10-07 14:21:29 Re: [PATCH] Add memory/disk usage for Function Scan nodes in EXPLAIN