From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Creager <Robert(dot)Creager(at)Sun(dot)com>, PGHackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Assert failure found in 8.1RC1 |
Date: | 2005-11-08 20:09:58 |
Message-ID: | 20051108200958.GS19551@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 08:46:27PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> For all the talk about "couldn't it be part of regression", I haven't seen
> anyone submit a patch that would test for it ... since I believe both you
> and Tom have both stated that "for things like race conditions, I don't
> know that you can create reproducable cases", can you submit a patch for
> how you propose this should be added to the regression tests?
I have an idea, but it might be better if Robert could produce a test
case since it would cover both a context storm issue as well as this
race condition.
Baring that, my idea was to spawn a number of processes, all of which
were trying to insert/update a random value in a table using David
Fetter's plpgsql code for doing a merge. This would produce a heavy
workload that also used subtransactions (due to the exception handling
in plpgsql).
Suggestions for a better test welcome...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2005-11-08 20:38:23 | lc_numeric and decimal delimiter |
Previous Message | Robert Creager | 2005-11-08 18:58:54 | Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload |