Re: Bug fix in vacuumdb --buffer-usage-limit xxx -Z
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Ryoga Yoshida <bt23yoshidar@oss.nttdata.com>,
pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-09-21T06:56:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 21 Sept 2023 at 17:59, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > That was fast. If I may ask, why don't you have some regression tests > for the two code paths of vacuumdb that append this option to the > commands generated for VACUUM and ANALYZE? I think we have differing standards for what constitutes as a useful test. For me, there would have to be a much higher likelihood of this ever getting broken again. I deem it pretty unlikely that someone will accidentally remove the code that I just committed and a test to test that vacuumdb -Z --buffer-usage-limit ... passes the BUFFER_USAGE_LIMIT option would likely just forever mark that we once had a trivial bug that forgot to include the --buffer-usage-limit when -Z was specified. If others feel strongly that a test is worthwhile, then I'll reconsider. David
Commits
-
Fix vacuumdb to pass buffer-usage-limit with analyze-only mode
- 5cfba1ad69c6 17.0 landed
- f7dbdab051d0 16.1 landed