On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 4:03 AM John Naylor <johncnaylo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 4:34 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > BTW I found that the constant 'maxblkno' in test_tidstore.sql actually > > equals to InvalidBlockNumber, but not MaxBlockNumber. I think it > > doesn't make sense that TidStore uses InvalidBlockNumber as the key. > > The attached 0001 patch fixes it. I think we can fix it separately on > > HEAD as well as back branches. > > I don't see a bug here, so I don't see the need for a backpatch -- the > block numbers in the tests are just numbers, they don't refer to > actual relations. I understand the desire to make it closer to > reality, but it seems cosmetic.
Okay, the patch fixes the test which is not a bug. Related to this, I realized that TidStoreSetBlockOffsets() checks if the given offset number is a valid OffsetNumber but doesn't do that for the given block number, which is not a bug neither, but I think we can add a check along with the test change. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
