Testing pg_terminate_backend()

bruce wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> The closest thing I can think of to an automated test is to run repeated
> > >> sets of the parallel regression tests, and each time SIGTERM a randomly
> > >> chosen backend at a randomly chosen time. Then see if anything "funny"
> >
> > > Yep, that was my plan, plus running the parallel regression tests you
> > > get the possibility of >2 backends.
> >
> > I was intentionally suggesting only one kill per test cycle. Multiple
> > kills will probably create an O(N^2) explosion in the set of possible
> > downstream-failure deltas. I doubt you'd really get any improvement
> > in testing coverage to justify the much larger amount of hand validation
> > needed.
> >
> > It also strikes me that you could make some simple alterations to the
> > regression tests to reduce the set of observable downstream deltas.
> > For example, anyplace where a test loads a table with successive INSERTs
> > and that table is used by later tests, wrap the INSERT sequence with
> > BEGIN/END. Then there is only one possible downstream delta (empty
> > table) and not N different possibilities for an N-row table.
>
> I have added pg_terminate_backend() to use SIGTERM and will start
> running tests as discussed with Tom. I will post my scripts too.

Attached is my test script. I ran it for 14 hours (asserts on),
running 450 regression tests, with up to seven backends killed per
regression test.

I have processed the combined regression.diffs files by pickouting out
all the new error messages. I don't see anything unusual in there.

Should I run it differently?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +