Re: Optimize SnapBuildPurgeOlderTxn: use in-place compaction instead of temporary array - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Neil Chen
Subject Re: Optimize SnapBuildPurgeOlderTxn: use in-place compaction instead of temporary array
Date
Msg-id CAA3qoJmiYyHykgVW7LA21-31N_+_NS0iJX93PnCCmjNQ5RKUHg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Optimize SnapBuildPurgeOlderTxn: use in-place compaction instead of temporary array  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Optimize SnapBuildPurgeOlderTxn: use in-place compaction instead of temporary array
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Tom,

On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 12:05 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

What makes you think this code isn't adequately tested already?
The coverage report at

https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/replication/logical/snapbuild.c.gcov.html

shows SnapBuildPurgeOlderTxn as pretty fully exercised.


I wasn’t aware of this website before, so thank you for sharing it.
Actually, this patch evolved from a tiny, "casual" quick-fix patch in its very first version. I agree that the current effort invested in it possible has outweighed the potential benefits it may bring.

On a side note, I’m a beginner with PostgreSQL and trying to take on some simple tasks while deepening my understanding of the system. I noticed that many items in the coverage tests you provided have rather low coverage rates (< 75%). Do you think it would be worthwhile to add more test cases to improve their test coverage? I’d appreciate any advice the community can offer on this. 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix how some lists are displayed by psql \d+
Next
From: Shinya Kato
Date:
Subject: Re: Use IsA() macro instead of nodeTag comparison