Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> writes: > That said, I don't think it's important to run the fuzzer in the > buildfarm. It should be enough to do that every once in a while, when > you modify the COPY FROM code (or something else that you want to fuzz > test). But we could easily include the test inputs generated by the > fuzzer in the regular tests. We've usually been very frugal in adding > tests, though, to keep the time it takes to run all the tests short.
Yeah, I think there's a lot of value in the fact that it doesn't take too long to run the core regression tests, or even check-world. Also, given you mentioned that this fuzzer bases its work partly on code examination, it seems like the right procedure would be to re-invoke the fuzzer after changes, not just blindly re-use the test cases it made for the old code. So it seems like the thing we want here is documentation or a test harness for using the fuzzer, but not direct incorporation of test cases. regards, tom lane