Hi Daniel, On 3/27/26 23:03, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > The attached rebase contains lots more polish, mostly renaming variable names > for clarity, tidying up comments and documentation and some smaller bits of > cleanup like moving more code out of xlog.c. > > This version runs all the tests in a normal test-run, with a few of them pared > down with larger runs gated by PG_TEST_EXTRA. I thinkt the tests are still > too > expensive in the event of getting committed, but it's helpful to have them > during dev and test. Executing pgbench sometimes fails in CI but I've been > unable to reproduce that so not entirely sure what is going on there. > > Heikki, Andres and Tomas; as you have been reviewing this patchset, what do > you > feel is left for considering this for commit? (Apart from figuring out the CI > test thing mentioned above which I think is a buildsystem issue.) I think 0001 > could be considered independently of 0002 and is cleanup in it's own right. >
Nothing particular comes to my mind, really. All the suggestions and ideas I've had regarding the patch I've already shared during the earlier reviews/testing. I'll take a look over the weekend, but I don't expect to find anything, especially now that Heikki reviewed it. The only thing that bothered me were the checksum failures in VM/FSM. The VM failures were fixed (right?), and the FSM failures are expected because we don't WAL-log that (and so no FPIs either). That's a bit unfortunate, but it's not a new issue or the fault of this patch, and it doesn't make it any worse. Fine with me. However, won't this be a problem for the TAP tests? I mean, what happens after a crash/restart, that might have corrupted the FSM? Won't that result in a test failure? regards -- Tomas Vondra
