Re: Optimize SnapBuildPurgeOlderTxn: use in-place compaction instead of temporary array
| От | Neil Chen |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Optimize SnapBuildPurgeOlderTxn: use in-place compaction instead of temporary array |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA3qoJmiYyHykgVW7LA21-31N_+_NS0iJX93PnCCmjNQ5RKUHg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Optimize SnapBuildPurgeOlderTxn: use in-place compaction instead of temporary array (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Optimize SnapBuildPurgeOlderTxn: use in-place compaction instead of temporary array
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Tom,
On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 12:05 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
What makes you think this code isn't adequately tested already?
The coverage report at
https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/replication/logical/snapbuild.c.gcov.html
shows SnapBuildPurgeOlderTxn as pretty fully exercised.
Actually, this patch evolved from a tiny, "casual" quick-fix patch in its very first version. I agree that the current effort invested in it possible has outweighed the potential benefits it may bring.
On a side note, I’m a beginner with PostgreSQL and trying to take on some simple tasks while deepening my understanding of the system. I noticed that many items in the coverage tests you provided have rather low coverage rates (< 75%). Do you think it would be worthwhile to add more test cases to improve their test coverage? I’d appreciate any advice the community can offer on this.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: