Hi,
On 2024-10-30 12:45:27 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2024-10-30 13:29:01 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 30/10/2024 04:21, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Attached is a, unfortunately long, series of patches implementing what I
> > > described upthread.
> >
> > Review of the preparatory patches:
> >
> > > 0001 Add very basic test for kill_prior_tuples
> > >
> > > We currently don't exercise this patch for gist and hash, which seems
> > > somewhat criminal.
> >
> > Interesting to use the isolationtester for this. There's just one session,
> > so you're just using it to define reusable steps with handy names.
>
> Yea. I had started out writing it as a pg_regress style test and it quickly got very
> hard to understand.
>
>
> > I'm fine with that, but please add a comment to explain it.
>
> Makes sense.
>
>
> > I wonder if it'd be more straightforward to make it a regular pg_regress
> > test though. There would be some repetition, but would it be so bad?
>
> I found it to be quite bad. If testing just one AM it's ok-ish, but once you
> test 2-3 it gets very long and repetitive. I guess we could use functions or
> such to make it a bit less painful - but that point, is it actually simpler?
>
>
> > You forgot to add the new test to 'isolation_schedule'.
>
> Oops.
>
> > typos:
> > "inex" -> "index"
> > "does something approximately reasonble" -> "do something approximately
> > reasonable"
>
> Oops^2.
Pushed the test with these changes.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
