On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 1:08 AM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 01:18:38PM -0700, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 5, 2025 at 11:52 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Could we also imagine that there are other activities enough to reach the memory
> > > limit and transactions are not aborted, meaning spill_txns and/or spill_count are > 0?
> > >
> > > In that case we may want to get rid of this test instead (as checking spill_txns >=0
> > > and spill_count >=0 would not really reflect the intend of this test).
> >
> > It makes sense to me to make an assumption that there are no
> > concurrent activities that are capturable by logical decoding during
> > this test. So I think we don't need to care about that case. On the
> > other hand, under this assumption, it also makes sense to check it
> > with the exact number. I've chosen >0 as we can achieve the same goal
> > while being more flexible for potential future changes. I'm open to
> > other suggestions though.
>
> >0 is fine by me. I was just wondering about spill_txns and spill_count too.
>
> That could sound weird that we are confident for spill_txns and spill_count
> to rely on the exact values and not for the new field. That said, I agree that
> >0 is more flexible for potential future changes (in the sense that this one
> is more likely to change in its implementation). In short, I'm fine with your
> proposal.
Thank you for the comment. I've noted this discussion as a comment in
the new tests.
I've attached the updated version patch. Please review it.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
