On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 11:19 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:55 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > I was working on expanding tests for AIO and as part of that wrote a test for
> > temp tables -- our coverage is fairly awful, there were many times during AIO
> > development where I knew I had trivially reachable temp table specific bugs
> > but all tests passed.
> >
> > The test for that does trigger the problem described above and is fixed by the
> > patches in this thread (which I included in the other thread):
>
> Thanks. Alright, I'm assuming that you don't have any objections to
> the way I restyled that API, so I'm going to go ahead and push some of
> these shortly, and then follow up with a few newer patches that
> simplify and improve the look-ahead and advice control. More very
> soon.
Ugh, I realised in another round of self-review that that version
could exceed the soft limit by a small amount if the registered
callback pins more buffers underneath it, so not pushed yet. I think
I see how to fix that (namely the alternative design that a comment
already contemplated), more soon...
