On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 07:19:27PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 09:08:03AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> I think the core code should provide an "Injection Point" wait event >> type and let extensions add specific wait events there, just like you >> did for "Extension". > > Michael, could you accept the core code offering that, or not? If so, I am > content to implement that. If not, for injection point wait events, I have > just one priority. The isolation tester already detects lmgr locks without > the test writer teaching it about each lock individually. I want it to have > that same capability for injection points. Do you think we can find something > everyone can accept, having that property? These wait events show up in tests > only, and I'm happy to make the cosmetics be anything compatible with that > detection ability.
Adding a wait event class for injection point is an interesting suggestion that would simplify the detection in the isolation function quite a bit. Are you sure that this is something that would be fit for v17 material? TBH, I am not sure. At the end, the test coverage has the highest priority and the bugs you are addressing are complex enough that isolation tests of this level are a necessity, so I don't object to what inplace050-tests-inj-v2.patch introduces with the naming dependency for the time being on HEAD. I'll just adapt and live with that depending on what I deal with, while trying to improve HEAD later on. I'm still wondering if there is something that could be more elegant than a dedicated class for injection points, but I cannot think about something that would be better for isolation tests on top of my head. If there is something I can think of, I'll just go and implement it :) -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature