Horton

Re: Poorly thought out code in vacuum

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2012-01-06T17:34:44Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Make VACUUM avoid waiting for a cleanup lock, where possible.

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> So at this point I've got serious doubts as to the quality of testing of
>> that whole patch, not just this part.

> I tested the case where we skip a block during the first pass, but I
> admit that I punted on testing the case where we skip a block during
> the second pass, because I couldn't think of a good way to exercise
> it.  Any suggestions?

Hack ConditionalLockBufferForCleanup to have a 50% probability of
failure regardless of anything else, for instance via

	static int ctr = 0;

	if ((++ctr) % 2)
		return false;

			regards, tom lane