From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Adam Berlin <aberlin(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: C testing for Postgres |
Date: | 2019-07-02 06:25:44 |
Message-ID: | 20190702062544.GH1388@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 09:42:54AM -0400, Adam Berlin wrote:
> If we were to use this tool, would the community want to vendor the
> framework in the Postgres repository, or keep it in a separate repository
> that produces a versioned shared library?
Well, my take is that having a base infrastructure for a fault
injection framework is something that would prove to be helpful, and
that I am not against having something in core. While working on
various issues, I have found myself doing many times crazy stat()
calls on an on-disk file to enforce an elog(ERROR) or elog(FATAL), and
by experience fault points are things very *hard* to place correctly
because they should not be single-purpose things.
Now, we don't want to finish with an infinity of fault points in the
tree, but being able to enforce a failure in a point added for a patch
using a SQL command can make the integration of tests in a patch
easier for reviewers, for example isolation tests with elog(ERROR)
(like what has been discussed for b4721f3).
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashwin Agrawal | 2019-07-02 07:07:42 | Re: C testing for Postgres |
Previous Message | Paul Guo | 2019-07-02 05:54:45 | Re: Two pg_rewind patches (auto generate recovery conf and ensure clean shutdown) |