Re: recovery testing for beta

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:39:56AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> What features in 9.4 need more beta testing for recovery?
>
> I've applied my partial-write testing harness to several scenarios in 9.4.  So
> far its found a recovery bug for gin indexes, a recovery bug for btree, a
> vacuum bug for btree indexes (with foreign keys, but that is not relevant to
> the bug), and nothing of interest for gist index, although it only tested
> "where text_array @@ to_tsquery(?)" queries.  
>
> It also implicitly tested the xlog parallel write slots thing, as that is
> common code to all recovery.
>
> I also applied the foreign key test retroactively to 9.3, and it quickly
> re-found the multixact bugs up until commit 9a57858f1103b89a5674.  The test was
> designed only with the knowledge that the bugs involved foreign keys and the
> consumption of multixacts.   I had no deeper knowledge of the details of those
> bugs when designing the test, so I have a reasonable amount of confidence that
> this could have found them in real time had I bothered to try to test the
> feature during the previous beta cycle.

Wow, that is impressive! We are looking for a ways to find bugs like
the ones the appeared in 9.3.X, and it seems you might have found a way.

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

+ Everyone has their own god. +