Re: Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_xid

Thanks for the information, I think it's already covered by the previous
commit.

Regards.



David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org>, 17 Mar 2026 Sal, 15:36 tarihinde şunu
yazdı:

> Hi,
>
> On 3/16/26 14:44, Hüseyin Demir wrote:
> >
> > David Steele <david@pgbackrest.org>, 6 Mar 2026 Cum, 16:01 tarihinde
> şunu yazdı:
> >>
> >> On 3/6/26 14:05, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 3:15 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 12:04:00AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >>>>> Thanks for the patch! It looks good to me. Barring any objections, I
> >>>>> will commit it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> I've pushed the patch. Thanks!
> >>
> >> Thank you and great idea on ALTER SYSTEM. I've been hesitant to add more
> >> tests in this area because they are so expensive but now I feel much
> >> better about it. But that's the last for this CF since there is more
> >> important stuff to be done.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> -David
> >
> > I tried to create tests with the ALTER SYSTEM approach to validate the
> GUC.
> >
> > You can review it if it's the correct approach or not. We can create a
> > new CF record if required for the patch.
>
> I modified the tests in the patch to use ALTER SYSTEM and that was
> committed at [1].
>
> One of the tests (bogus) you have added here is a duplicate but the
> other one (upper bound) could be added.
>
> You appear to be working against an old version of the master branch so
> I would recommend rebasing and then add your upper bound test following
> the test pattern we have already established.
>
> I personally don't think the upper bound test adds a lot of value here
> since it is handled by strtou64() just like the bogus test so it will
> not extend coverage, but I'm fine with it if others are.
>
> Regards,
> -David
>
> [1]
>
> https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/bffd7130e942e2bd45153ab09e5fab70e74ece58
> .
>