From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2023-12-11 09:44:46 |
Message-ID: | ZXbaDg5fBl8GLy2u@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 11:09:45AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> I haven't specifically done a review or testing of this patch, but I
> have used this for testing the CLOG group update code with my
> SLRU-specific changes and I found it quite helpful to test some of the
> concurrent areas where you need to stop processing somewhere in the
> middle of the code and testing that area without this kind of
> injection point framework is really difficult or may not be even
> possible. We wanted to test the case of clog group update where we
> can get multiple processes added to a single group and get the xid
> status updated by the group leader, you can refer to my test in that
> thread[1] (the last patch test_group_commit.patch is using this
> framework for testing).
Could you be more specific? test_group_commit.patch includes this
line but there is nothing specific about this injection point getting
used in a test or a callback assigned to it:
./test_group_commit.patch:+ INJECTION_POINT("ClogGroupCommit");
> Overall I feel this framework is quite useful
> and easy to use as well.
Cool, thanks.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-12-11 10:00:07 | Re: GUC names in messages |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-12-11 09:37:13 | Re: Streaming I/O, vectored I/O (WIP) |