On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 1:54 PM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > If I were making a list of changes always welcome post-beta, it wouldn't > include adding wait event types. But I don't hesitate to add one if it > unblocks a necessary test for a bug present in all versions.
However, injection points themselves are not present in all versions, so even if we invent a new wait-event type, we'll have difficulty testing older versions, unless we're planning to back-patch all of that infrastructure, which I assume we aren't. Personally, I think the fact that injection point wait events were put under Extension is a design mistake that should be corrected before 17 is out of beta. > Here's what I'm reading for each person's willingness to tolerate each option: > > STRATEGY | Paquier | Misch | Haas > -------------------------------------------------------- > new "Injection Point" wait type | maybe | yes | yes > INJECTION_POINT(...) naming | yes | yes | unknown > isolation spec says event names | yes | no | unknown > > Corrections and additional strategy lines welcome. Robert, how do you judge > the lines where I've listed you as "unknown"? I'd tolerate INJECTION_POINT() if we had no other option but I think it's clearly inferior. Does the last line refer to putting the specific wait event names in the isolation spec file? If so, I'd also be fine with that. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
