Hi, On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 3:23 PM Michael Paquier <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 11:04:55AM -0700, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 10:41 AM surya poondla <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> On the test front: once the race code path is gone, the injection point > >> with the spec file isn't strictly needed either. > >> A simpler test that shows "VACUUM with a concurrent drop successfully > >> completes without error" should suffice. > >> Bharath's TAP test suggestion under src/test/modules/test_misc seems like > >> a good fit now. > > > > Thinking about this further, the test is NOT needed at all with this > > approach because vacuum_open_relation() already protects against > > concurrent drops. So, -1 for adding a new test. > > Well, as you mentioned upthread the only test infrastructure that we > could use here is TAP, as database-wide VACUUMs could get costly when > running other tests in parallel and we need stability. But I cannot > get excited about the cost this would have versus the coverage we get. > Cycles are better spent elsewhere, even if injection points could be > leveraged here.
Agreed. I don't think it brings in any new coverage. Let's not complicate things with injection points and tests for this fix. -- Bharath Rupireddy Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
