Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 9:31 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ... So, we have the below
>> options:
>> (a) remove this test entirely from all branches and once we found the
>> memory leak problem in back-branches, then consider adding it again
>> without max_files_per_process restriction.
>> (b) keep this test without max_files_per_process restriction till v11
>> and once the memory leak issue in v10 is found, we can back-patch to
>> v10 as well.
> I am planning to go with option (a) and attached are patches to revert
> the entire test on HEAD and back branches. I am planning to commit
> these by Tuesday unless someone has a better idea.
Makes sense to me. We've certainly found out something interesting
from this test, but not what it was expecting to find ;-). I think
that there could be scope for two sorts of successor tests:
* I still like my idea of directly constraining max_safe_fds through
some sort of debug option. But to my mind, we want to run the entire
regression suite with that restriction, not just one small test.
* The seeming bug in v10 suggests that we aren't testing large enough
logical-decoding cases, or at least aren't noticing leaks in that
area. I'm not sure what a good design is for testing that. I'm not
thrilled with just using a larger (and slower) test case, but it's
not clear to me how else to attack it.
regards, tom lane
