Re: MultiXact\SLRU buffers configuration

On 2024-Feb-03, Andrey M. Borodin wrote:

> Here's the test draft. This test reliably reproduces sleep on CV when waiting next multixact to be filled into
"members"SLRU.
 
> Cost of having this test:
> 1. We need a new injection point type "wait" (in addition to "error" and "notice"). It cannot be avoided, because we
needto sync at least 3 processed to observe condition we want.
 
> 2. We need new way to declare injection point that can happen inside critical section. I've called it "prepared
injectionpoint".
 
> 
> Complexity of having this test is higher than complexity of CV-sleep patch itself. Do we want it? If so I can produce
cleanerversion, currently all multixact tests are int injection_points test module.
 

Well, it would be nice to have *some* test, but as you say it is way
more complex than the thing being tested, and it zooms in on the
functioning of the multixact creation in insane quantum-physics ways ...
to the point that you can no longer trust that multixact works the same
way with the test than without it.  So what I did is manually run other
tests (pgbench) to verify that the corner case in multixact creation is
being handled correctly, and pushed the patch after a few corrections,
in particular so that it would follow the CV sleeping protocol a little
more closely to what the CV documentation suggests, which is not at all
what the patch did.  I also fixed a few comments that had been neglected
and changed the name and description of the CV in the docs.

Now, maybe we can still add the test later, but it needs a rebase.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera        Breisgau, Deutschland  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
“Cuando no hay humildad las personas se degradan” (A. Christie)