Re: longfin and tamandua aren't too happy but I'm not sure why - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: longfin and tamandua aren't too happy but I'm not sure why
Date
Msg-id 20220928192015.eqtj4kdc7cjxykjw@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: longfin and tamandua aren't too happy but I'm not sure why  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: longfin and tamandua aren't too happy but I'm not sure why
List pgsql-hackers
On 2022-Sep-28, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

> It would be useful if there were generic tests that caught issues like
> this. There are various subtle effects related to how struct layout
> can impact WAL record size that might easily be missed. It's not like
> there are a huge number of truly critical WAL records to have tests
> for.

What do you think would constitute a test here?

Say: insert N records to a heapam table with one index of each kind
(under controlled conditions: no checkpoint, no autovacuum, no FPIs),
then measure the total number of bytes used by WAL records of each rmgr.
Have a baseline and see how that changes over time.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: predefined role(s) for VACUUM and ANALYZE
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: longfin and tamandua aren't too happy but I'm not sure why