Re: Adding facility for injection points (or probe points?) for more advanced tests

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Adding facility for injection points (or probe points?) for more advanced tests
Date: 2024-01-05 16:28:47
Message-ID: 20240105162847.GB2168314@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 04:18:49PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Putting that in contrib/ has a lot of extra cost. One is
> documentation and more complexity regarding versioning when it comes
> to upgrading it to a new version. I don't think that it is a good
> idea to deal with this extra load of work for something that I'd aim
> to be used for having improved *test* coverage, and the build switch
> should stay.

+1

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2024-01-05 16:42:03 Re: verify predefined LWLocks have entries in wait_event_names.txt
Previous Message Robert Haas 2024-01-05 16:28:16 Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs