From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA |
Date: | 2023-02-14 00:43:10 |
Message-ID: | 20230214004310.sgdwics7icwp4eie@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-02-14 11:38:06 +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> No, nothing specific in mind. But maybe like these:
> - tests for causing obscure errors that would never otherwise be
> reached without something deliberately designed to fail a certain way
I think there's some cases around this that could be usefu, but also a lot
that wouldn't.
> - tests for trivial user errors apparently deemed not worth bloating
> the regression tests with -- e.g. many errorConflictingDefElem not
> being called [1].
I don't think it's worth adding a tests for all of these. The likelihood of
catching a problem seems quite small.
> - timing-related or error tests where some long (multi-second) delay
> is a necessary part of the setup.
IME that's almost always a sign that the test wouldn't be stable anyway.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-02-14 00:55:37 | Re: pg_walinspect memory leaks |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-02-14 00:39:46 | Re: Buffer usage detailed by RelKind in EXPLAIN ANALYZE BUFFERS |