On 2/26/14, 9:15 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 26 February 2014 13:38, Andres Freund<and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On 2014-02-26 07:32:45 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> >* This definitely should include isolationtester tests actually
>> > performing concurrent ALTER TABLEs. All that's currently there is
>> > tests that the locklevel isn't too high, but not that it actually works.
>>
>>There is no concurrent behaviour here, hence no code that would be
>>exercised by concurrent tests.
>
>Huh? There's most definitely new concurrent behaviour. Previously no
>other backends could have a relation open (and locked) while it got
>altered (which then sends out relcache invalidations). That's something
>that should be tested.
It has been. High volume concurrent testing has been performed, per
Tom's original discussion upthread, but that's not part of the test
suite.
For other tests I have no guide as to how to write a set of automated
regression tests. Anything could cause a failure, so I'd need to write
an infinite set of tests to prove there is no bug*somewhere*. How
many tests are required? 0, 1, 3, 30?
ISTM that we don't want hand-written tests here, but rather generated tests
that actually hit all potential cases. Obviously we'd never run that as part of
normal reqression, but farm animals certainly could.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect j...@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
