On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 6:55 PM John Naylor
<john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 3:29 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 4:35 PM John Naylor
> > <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think any vacuum calls in regression tests would stress any of this code very much, so it's not worth
carryingthe old way forward. I was thinking of only doing this as a short-time sanity check for testing a real-world
workload.
> >
> > I guess that It would also be helpful at least until the GA release.
> > People will be able to test them easily on their workloads or their
> > custom test scenarios.
>
> That doesn't seem useful to me. If we've done enough testing to reassure us the new way always gives the same answer,
theold way is not needed at commit time. If there is any doubt it will always give the same answer, then the whole
patchsetwon't be committed.
True. Even if we're done enough testing we cannot claim there is no
bug. My idea is to make the bug investigation easier but on
reflection, it seems not the best idea given this purpose. Instead, it
seems to be better to add more necessary assertions. What do you think
about the attached patch? Please note that it also includes the
changes for minimum memory requirement.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com