a.kozhemya...@postgrespro.ru writes: > But my point is that after 4fb5c794e5 for most developer setups and > buildfarm members, e.g.: > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=guaibasaurus&dt=2022-09-25%2001%3A01%3A13 > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=tayra&dt=2022-09-24%2020%3A40%3A00 > the ginbulkdelete() most probably is not tested. > In other words, it seems that we've just lost the effect of 4c51a2d1e4: > Add a test case that exercises vacuum's deletion of empty GIN > posting pages.
Yeah. You can see that the coverage-test animal is not reaching it anymore: https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/backend/access/gin/ginvacuum.c.gcov.html So it seems clear that 4fb5c794e5 made at least some coverage worse not better. I think we'd better rejigger it to add some new indexes not repurpose old ones. regards, tom lane
