> On Mar 26, 2026, at 07:00, Jim Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> On 25/03/2026 21:38, Zsolt Parragi wrote:
>> Shouldn't the patch also include a tap test to verify that the change
>> works / fails without it?
> 
> Definitely. I just didn't want to invest much time on tests before
> getting feedback on the issue itself.
> 
>> + /* Skip temp relations belonging to other sessions */
>> + {
>> + Oid nsp = get_rel_namespace(index->indrelid);
>> +
>> + if (!isTempOrTempToastNamespace(nsp) && isAnyTempNamespace(nsp))
>> + {
>> 
>> Doesn't this result in several repeated syscache lookups?
>> 
>> There's already a SearchSysCacheExsists1 directly above this, then a
>> get_rel_namespace, then an isAnyTempNamespace. While this probably
>> isn't performance critical, this should be doable with a single
>> SearchSysCache1(RELOID...) and then a few conditions, similarly to the
>> else branch below this?
> 
> You're right. Although it is not performance critical we can solve it
> with a single SearchSysCache1.
> 
> PFA v3 with the improved fix (0001) and tests (0002).
> 
> Thanks for the review!
> 
> Best, 
> Jim<v3-0001-Skip-other-sessions-temp-tables-in-REPACK-CLUSTER.patch><v3-0002-Test-VACUUM-FULL-CLUSTER-and-REPACK-with-locked-t.patch>

I don't think such a TAP test is necessary.

One reason is that, if we look at the check right above the new one:
```
                /*
                 * We include partitioned tables here; depending on which 
operation is
                 * to be performed, caller will decide whether to process or 
ignore
                 * them.
                 */
                if (classForm->relkind != RELKIND_RELATION &&
                        classForm->relkind != RELKIND_MATVIEW &&
                        classForm->relkind != RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE)
                        continue;
```

I don't see a test specifically for that check either. So I don't think we need 
a test for every individual path.

Second, based on [1] and [2], I got the impression that adding new tests is not 
always welcome considering overall test runtime. Anyway, maybe I’m wrong, let 
the committers judge that.

[1] 
https://postgr.es/m/mtkrkkcn2tlhytumitpch5ubxiprv2jzvprf5r5m3mjeczvq4q@p6wkzbfxuyv2
 <https://postgr.es/m/>
[2] https://postgr.es/m/[email protected]

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/






Reply via email to