Re: Testing of MVCC

Tom Lane wrote:

>Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Maybe the right answer is just to hack up Pg.pm or DBD::Pg to provide
>>>the needed asynchronous-command-submission facility, and go forward
>>>from there using the Perl Test framework.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>How will we make sure it's consistent? People have widely varying
>>versions of DBD::Pg and DBI installed, not to mention the bewildering
>>array of Test::Foo modules out there
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, that would be an issue. But can't a Perl script require
>"version >= m.n" for each module it uses?
>
>

Yes it can, but are you going to restrict building or running
regressions to only thos platforms that have our required modules
installed? That might be thought a tad unfriendly.

>I had actually been thinking to myself that Pg.pm might be a better base
>because it's more self-contained.
>
>Another line of thought is to write a fresh implementation of the wire
>protocol all in Perl, so as not to depend on DBI or much of anything
>except Perl's TCP support (which I hope is reasonably well standardized
>;-)). If you wanted to do any testing at the protocol level ---
>handling of bad messages, say --- you'd pretty much need this anyway
>because no driver is going to let you get at things at such a low level.
>But it'd raise the cost of getting started quite a bit.
>
>

I think we're mostly on the same page.

Maybe pulling some code from this would give us a leg up rather than
having to start from scratch: http://search.cpan.org/~arc/DBD-PgPP-0.05/

cheers

andrew