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

From: Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: 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: 2023-10-25 04:36:17
Message-ID: CAAJ_b94ujb9Y6+csX82X1WPAEqSTAjFrPUgfkEDRrZLOOia_yg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 9:43 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I don't remember how many times in the last few years when I've had to
> hack the backend to produce a test case that involves a weird race
> condition across multiple processes running in the backend, to be able
> to prove a point or just test a fix (one recent case: 2b8e5273e949).
> Usually, I come to hardcoding stuff for the following situations:
> - Trigger a PANIC, to force recovery.
> - A FATAL, to take down a session, or just an ERROR.
> - palloc() failure injection.
> - Sleep to slow down a code path.
> - Pause and release with condition variable.

+1 for the feature.

TWIMW, here[1] is an interesting talk from pgconf.in 2020 on the similar
topic.

1] https://pgconf.in/conferences/pgconfin2020/program/proposals/101

Regards,
Amul Sul

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2023-10-25 04:57:15 Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2023-10-25 04:13:38 Adding facility for injection points (or probe points?) for more advanced tests