From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] psql & regress tests |
Date: | 1999-11-19 00:17:23 |
Message-ID: | 318.942970643@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> * Since no one has picked up on my idea to run the tests directly on the
>> backend, I will keep reiterating this idea until someone shuts me up
> Running the backend standalone does not use locking with other backends,
> so it is dangerous.
It wouldn't be particularly "dangerous" if we assume that no one else is
accessing the regression database. What it *would* be is less useful at
catching problems. Standalone mode wouldn't test the cross-backend
interlocking code at all.
Admittedly, running a bunch of tests serially isn't a strong stress test
of cross-backend behavior, but it's not as content-free a check as you
might think. On my machine, at least, the old backend is still around
doing shutdown for the first half-second or so while the next one is
running.
What I'd really like to see is some deliberate parallelism in some of
the regress tests...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-11-19 00:22:48 | pg version date file |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-11-18 23:49:51 | Re: [HACKERS] psql & regress tests |