Remove obsolate comments from 047_checkpoint_physical_slot
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 has the same TAP test.
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
Attachments:
remove_comments.diffsapplication/octet-stream; name=remove_comments.diffsDownload
diff --git a/src/test/recovery/t/047_checkpoint_physical_slot.pl b/src/test/recovery/t/047_checkpoint_physical_slot.pl
index 9e98383e30e..6299f705fd0 100644
--- a/src/test/recovery/t/047_checkpoint_physical_slot.pl
+++ b/src/test/recovery/t/047_checkpoint_physical_slot.pl
@@ -46,7 +46,6 @@ $node->safe_psql('postgres',
# Run checkpoint to flush current state to disk and set a baseline.
$node->safe_psql('postgres', q{checkpoint});
-# Insert 2M rows; that's about 260MB (~20 segments) worth of WAL.
$node->advance_wal(20);
# Advance slot to the current position, just to have everything "valid".
@@ -57,7 +56,6 @@ $node->safe_psql('postgres',
# Run another checkpoint to set a new restore LSN.
$node->safe_psql('postgres', q{checkpoint});
-# Another 2M rows; that's about 260MB (~20 segments) worth of WAL.
$node->advance_wal(20);
my $restart_lsn_init = $node->safe_psql('postgres',
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 feature is disabled,
the macro function would be ((void) name). IIUC, we are using the macro if if-branch
exists.
E.g., another injection point "create-restart-point" does not have the #ifdef part.
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
On 25 Sep 2025, at 09:23, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> 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");
#endif
```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
exists.
+1, that's not needed (and not used elsewhere in the code either).
--
Daniel Gustafsson
On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 09:32:40AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 25 Sep 2025, at 09:23, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> 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
exists.+1, that's not needed (and not used elsewhere in the code either).
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 the comments of the test 047 are indeed not required anymore.
Good catch.
If you want to go ahead and clean up all that, Daniel, please feel
free. If not, I'm OK to pull the trigger on this one.
--
Michael
On 25 Sep 2025, at 09:59, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> 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 to go ahead and clean up all that, Daniel, please feel
free. If not, I'm OK to pull the trigger on this one.
No worries, I can fix it today.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
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
# removing old WAL segments.
```
Is "injection point)" a typo? I feel it is enough to remove ")".
Feel free to include if you agree this point as well.
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
On 25 Sep 2025, at 13:11, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> 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