Dear hackers,
> While reviewing others, I found $SUBJECT.
I found another cleanup point related with this. In CreateCheckPoint():
```
#ifdef USE_INJECTION_POINTS
INJECTION_POINT("checkpoint-before-old-wal-removal");
#endif
```
Here USE_INJECTION_POINTS check is not needed. If the featur
On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 09:32:40AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2025, at 09:23, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
>> Here USE_INJECTION_POINTS check is not needed. If the feature is disabled,
>> the macro function would be ((void) name). IIUC, we are using the macro if
>> if-branch
Dear Daniel, Michael,
Thanks for the reply and sorry for posting many times.
Both 046_checkpoint_logical and 047_checkpoint_physical has below comments:
```
# Run another checkpoint, this time in the background, and make it wait
# on the injection point) so that the checkpoint stops right before
> On 25 Sep 2025, at 09:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yeah, let's remove that. Simplification in the backend code is the
> whole point of the double definition of the INJECTION_POINT() macro in
> injection_point.h.
And I very much approve of that, it makes the code a lot better.
> If you want t
> On 25 Sep 2025, at 09:23, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
>
> Dear hackers,
>
>> While reviewing others, I found $SUBJECT.
>
> I found another cleanup point related with this. In CreateCheckPoint():
>
> ```
> #ifdef USE_INJECTION_POINTS
> INJECTION_POINT("checkpoint-before-old-wal-removal"
> On 25 Sep 2025, at 13:11, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> Is "injection point)" a typo? I feel it is enough to remove ")".
> Feel free to include if you agree this point as well.
Nice catch, I included this with the other fixes and pushed them today.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
Dear hackers,
(CC: Alexander, who is an original committer)
While reviewing others, I found $SUBJECT.
Initially the tests inserted 2M tuples twice, and 4464fddf improves to use the
advance_wal().
However, code comments in the test missed to be updated.
PSA the fix patch.
This exists PG17+, which
