Re: Comment in ginpostinglist.c doesn't match code - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashwin Agrawal
Subject Re: Comment in ginpostinglist.c doesn't match code
Date
Msg-id CALfoeiv2aS4yL1N_jKuvRcHCgSWJ0syHoaJ8zfRfCb93AJKb9g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Comment in ginpostinglist.c doesn't match code  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
Responses Re: Comment in ginpostinglist.c doesn't match code  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:14 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:

The patch also includes a little unit test module to test this without
creating a 16 TB table. A whole new test module seems a bit like
overkill just for this, but clearly we were missing test coverage here.
And it will come handy, if we want to invent a new better posting list
format in the future. Thoughts on whether to include the test module or not?

I like the test as importantly adds missing coverage. Also, really simplifies validation effort if required to make change in this area anytime in future. So, I would +1 keeping the same.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Soumyadeep Chakraborty
Date:
Subject: Infinite wait for SyncRep while handling USR1
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps