On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:48 PM John Naylor
<john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/9/19, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 3:25 PM John Naylor <john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 4:04 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> > This is certainly a good test w.r.t code coverage of new code, but I
> > have few comments:
> > 1. The size of records in test still depends on alignment (MAXALIGN).
> > Though it doesn't seem to be a problematic case, I still suggest we
> > can avoid using records whose size depends on alignment. If you
> > change the schema as CREATE TABLE fsm_check_size (num1 int, num2 int,
> > str text);, then you can avoid alignment related issues for the
> > records being used in test.
>
> Done.
>
> > 2.
> > +-- Fill most of the last block
> > ..
> > +-- Make sure records can go into any block but the last one
> > ..
> > +-- Insert large record and make sure it does not cause the relation to
> > extend
> >
> > The comments in some part of the test seems too focussed towards the
> > algorithm used for in-memory map. I think we can keep these if we
> > want, but it is required to write a more generic comment stating what
> > is the actual motive of additional tests (basically we are testing the
> > functionality of in-memory map (LSM) for the heap, so we should write
> > about it.).
>
> Done.
>
Thanks, the modification looks good. I have slightly changed the
commit message in the attached patch. I will spend some more time
tomorrow morning on this and will commit unless I see any new problem.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com