Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> If I am off base, please feel free to yell Latin at me again but isn't this
> exactly what different trees are for in Git? Would it be possible to say:
>
> Robert says, "Hey pull XYZ, run ABC tests. They are what the parallelism
> fixes do"?
>
> I can't review this patch but I can run a test suite on a number of
> platforms and see if it behaves as expected.

Sure, I'd love to have the ability to push a branch into the buildfarm
and have the tests get run on all the buildfarm machines and let that
bake for a while before putting it into the main tree. The problem
here is that the complicated part of this patch is something that's
only going to be tested in very rare cases. The simple part of the
patch, which handles the simple-deadlock case, is easy to hit,
although apparently zero people other than Amit and I have found it in
the few months since parallel sequential scan was committed, which
makes me thing people haven't tried very hard to break any part of
parallel query, which is a shame. The really hairy part is in
deadlock.c, and it's actually very hard to hit that case. It won't be
hit in real life except in pretty rare circumstances. So testing is
good, but you not only need to know what you are testing but probably
have an automated tool that can run the test a gazillion times in a
loop, or be really clever and find a test case that Amit and I didn't
foresee. And the reality is that getting anybody independent of the
parallel query effort to take an interested in deep testing has not
gone anywhere at all up until now. I'd be happy for that change,
whether because of this commit or for any other reason.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company