On 07/31/2014 12:29 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
On 29 July 2014 02:35, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
David Rowley wrote:
I've also been looking at the isolation tests and I see that you've added a
series of tests for NOWAIT. I was wondering why you did that as that's
really existing code, probably if you thought the tests were a bit thin
around NOWAIT then maybe that should be a separate patch?
The isolation tester is new so we don't have nearly enough tests for it.
Adding more meaningful tests is good even if they're unrelated to the
patch at hand.
Here are my isolation tests for NOWAIT as a separate patch,
independent of SKIP LOCKED. They cover the tuple lock, regular row
lock and multixact row lock cases.
Thanks, committed.
I guess this might be called white
box testing, since it usese knowledge of how to construct schedules
that hit the three interesting code paths that trigger the error, even
though you can't see from the output why the error was raised in each
case without extra instrumentation (though it did cross my mind that
it could be interesting at the very least for testing if the error
message were different in each case).
Yeah, seems reasonable. This kind of tests might become obsolete in the
future if the internals change a lot, so that e.g. we don't use
multixids anymore. But even if that happens, there's little harm in
keeping the tests, and meanwhile it's good to have coverage of these cases.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
