Re: [HACKERS] psql & regress tests

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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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