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

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>
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 04:57:18
Message-ID: ZTigLj45LpVHF_z7@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:06:17AM +0530, Amul Sul wrote:
> +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

Right, this uses a shared hash table. There is a patch from 2019 that
summarizes this presentation as well:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANXE4TdxdESX1jKw48xet-5GvBFVSq%3D4cgNeioTQff372KO45A%40mail.gmail.com

A different idea is that this patch could leverage a bgworker instead
of having a footprint in the postmaster. FWIW, I think that my patch
is more flexible than the modes added by faultinjector.h (see 0001),
because the actions that can be taken should not be limited by the
core code: the point registered could just use what it wants as
callback, so an extension could register a custom thing as well.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2023-10-25 05:04:15 Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2023-10-25 04:57:15 Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby