Hi,
On 2026-03-27 17:17:25 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 1:29 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >
> > On 2026-03-26 20:12:30 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > One test used did_io=(t|f). That was actually only needed once "aio: Don't
> > > wait for already in-progress IO" is in, as we might join the foreign IO. I
> > > chose to hide that by making that part of the query "did_io and not
> > > foreign_io", so we would detect if we were to falsely start IO ourselves.
> >
> > I ended up not liking did_io, as that seems misleading when we just needed to
> > wait for a foreign IO. I instead named it io_reqd.
>
> 0001 looks good to me except I don't get why you are still passing
> MAIN_FORKNUM to PrefetchBuffer() in invalidate_one_block()
Because I am stupid.
> In 0002, the test cases look good to me. I haven't gained more
> knowledge about injection point related code since my last review, so
> still no comment there (inj_io_completion_hook(), etc).
>
> I didn't see anything amiss reviewing by eye. Running it through AI,
> it suggested that you should clear stdout between test cases in
> test_inject_foreign. I think this seems most relevant because in two
> back-to-back tests you are looking for the same output pattern.
Yea, that's a good call.
I'll give the BF a bit more time to digest f39cb8c0110 and then will push
0001/0002.
> It also pointed out that there is a pre-existing bug in
> inj_io_short_read_hook() where you pass the wrong parameter to the log
> message.
>
> ereport(LOG, errmsg("short read injection point called, is enabled: %d",
> inj_io_error_state->enabled_reopen),
> errhidestmt(true), errhidecontext(true));
>
> should be
>
> ereport(LOG, errmsg("short read injection point called, is enabled: %d",
> inj_io_error_state->enabled_short_read),
> errhidestmt(true), errhidecontext(true));
I'll fix this as part of 0002 which touches related code, an injection point
debug message fixup doesn't seem to deserve its own commit message.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
