From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Small omission in type_sanity.sql |
Date: | 2023-01-28 02:30:54 |
Message-ID: | 20230128023054.uyqz2puajlcwptiz@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-01-27 20:39:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Tom, is there a reason we run the various sanity tests early-ish in the
> > schedule? It does seem to reduce their effectiveness a bit...
>
> Originally, those tests were mainly needed to sanity-check the
> hand-maintained initial catalog data, so it made sense to run them
> early.
It's also kinda useful to have some basic validity testing early on, because
if there's something wrong with the catalog values, it'll cause lots of issues
later.
> > Problems:
> > - "Cross-check against pg_type entry" is far too strict about legal combinations
> > of typstorage
>
> Perhaps, but it's enforcing policy about what we want in the
> initial catalog data, not what is possible to support.
True in generaly, but I don't think it matters much in this specific case. We
don't gain much by forbidding 'e' -> 'x' mismatches, given that we allow 'x'
-> 'p'.
There's a lot more such cases in opr_sanity. There's a lot of tests in it that
only make sense for validating the initial catalog contents. It might be
useful to run a more lenient version of it later though.
> So there's a bit of divergence of goals here too. Maybe we need to split up
> the tests into initial-data-only tests (run early) and tests that should
> hold for user-created objects too (run late)?
Yea, I think so. A bit worried about the duplication that might require.
But the *sanity tests also do also encode a lot of good cross-checks, that are
somewhat easy to break in code (and / or have been broken in the past), so I
think it's worth pursuing.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-01-28 02:38:50 | Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-01-28 01:59:32 | Re: Add n_tup_newpage_upd to pg_stat table views |