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
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 |