On 2019-Jun-01, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > I ended up with these two patches. I'm not sure about pushing
> > separately. It seems pointless to backport the "fix" to back branches
> > anyway.
>
> Patch passes the eyeball test, though I did not try to run it.
> I concur with
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I ended up with these two patches. I'm not sure about pushing
> separately. It seems pointless to backport the "fix" to back branches
> anyway.
Patch passes the eyeball test, though I did not try to run it.
I concur with squashing into one commit and applying to HEAD
On 2019-May-30, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> One thing I noticed while writing it, though, is that worker_spi uses
> the postgres database, instead of the contrib_regression database that
> was created for it. And we create a schema and a table there. This is
> going to get some eyebrows raised, I
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2019-May-30, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, I don't understand how this works at all:
>>
>> +PERFORM pg_sleep(CASE WHEN count(*) = 0 THEN 0 ELSE 0.1
>> END)
>> +FROM schema1.counted WHERE type = 'delta';
>> +GET
On 2019-May-30, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > On 2019-May-29, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm not opposed to adding a new test case at this point in the cycle,
> >> but as written this one seems more or less guaranteed to fail under
> >> load.
>
> > True. Here's a version that should
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2019-May-29, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not opposed to adding a new test case at this point in the cycle,
>> but as written this one seems more or less guaranteed to fail under
>> load.
> True. Here's a version that should be more resilient.
Hm, I don't understand how
On 2019-May-29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Tom pointed out that coverage for worker_spi is 0%. For a module that
> > only exists to provide coverage, that's pretty stupid. This patch
> > increases coverage to 90.9% line-wise and 100% function-wise, which
> > seems like a
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom pointed out that coverage for worker_spi is 0%. For a module that
> only exists to provide coverage, that's pretty stupid. This patch
> increases coverage to 90.9% line-wise and 100% function-wise, which
> seems like a sufficient starting point.
> How would people
Tom pointed out that coverage for worker_spi is 0%. For a module that
only exists to provide coverage, that's pretty stupid. This patch
increases coverage to 90.9% line-wise and 100% function-wise, which
seems like a sufficient starting point.
How would people feel about me getting this in
