Re: Flaky vacuum truncate test in reloptions.sql

From: Arseny Sher <a(dot)sher(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Flaky vacuum truncate test in reloptions.sql
Date: 2021-03-31 13:39:39
Message-ID: d5dd7eaf-0ba1-a18b-1ef2-552196f36a71@postgrespro.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 3/31/21 4:17 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:

> Is it better to add FREEZE to the first "VACUUM reloptions_test;" as
well?

I don't think this matters much, as it tests the contrary and the
probability of
successful test passing (in case of theoretical bug making vacuum to
truncate
non-empty relation) becomes stunningly small. But adding it wouldn't hurt
either.

-- cheers, arseny

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Markus Wanner 2021-03-31 13:50:53 Re: [PATCH] add concurrent_abort callback for output plugin
Previous Message David Steele 2021-03-31 13:33:25 Re: invalid data in file backup_label problem on windows