Re: A test for replay of regression tests

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A test for replay of regression tests
Date: 2021-04-23 17:13:15
Message-ID: 1442880.1619197995@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2021-04-23 11:53:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah. I found out earlier that wal_consistency_checking=all is an
>> absolute PIG. Running the regression tests that way requires tens of
>> gigabytes of disk space, and a significant amount of time if your
>> disk is not very speedy. If we put this into the buildfarm at all,
>> it would have to be opt-in, not run-by-default, because a lot of BF
>> animals simply don't have the horsepower. I think I'd vote against
>> adding it to check-world, too; the cost/benefit ratio is not good
>> unless you are specifically working on replay functions.

> I think it'd be a huge improvement to test recovery during check-world
> by default - it's a huge swath of crucial code that practically has no
> test coverage. I agree that testing by default with
> wal_consistency_checking=all isn't feasible due to the time & space
> overhead, so I think we should not do that.

I was mainly objecting to enabling wal_consistency_checking by default.
I agree it's bad that we have so little routine test coverage on WAL
replay code.

>> The two things I'd say about this are (1) Whether to use
>> wal_consistency_checking, and with what value, needs to be
>> easily adjustable. (2) People will want to run other test suites
>> than the core regression tests, eg contrib modules.

> I don't think there's actually that much need to test contrib modules
> through recovery - most of them don't seem like they'd add meaningful
> coverage? The exception is contrib/bloom, but perhaps that'd be better
> tackled with a dedicated test?

contrib/bloom is indeed the only(?) case within contrib, but in my mind
that's a proxy for what people will be needing to test out-of-core AMs.
It might not be a test to run by default, but there needs to be a way
to do it.

Also, I suspect that there are bits of GIST/GIN/SPGIST that are not
well exercised if you don't run the contrib modules that add opclasses
for those.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2021-04-23 17:22:49 Re: A test for replay of regression tests
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2021-04-23 17:12:19 Re: ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY