From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Injection points: some tools to wait and wake |
Date: | 2024-03-06 22:54:51 |
Message-ID: | Zej0Oyd_FlOjY6Ut@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 10:19:41AM +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> What I mainly meant is that anything in src/test/modules is not even
> close to somewhat useful for other people to use. They are really just
> very specific tests that need to be written in C. Afaict all those
> modules are not even used by tests outside of their own module. But
> these functions are helper functions, to be used by other tests. And
> limiting the users of those helper functions to just be in-core
> Postgres code seems a bit annoying. I feel like these functions are
> more akin to the pgregress/isolationtester binaries in their usage,
> than akin to other modules in src/test/modules.
Perhaps. I think that we're still in the discovery phase for this
stuff, and more people should get used to it first (this will take
some time and everybody is busy with their own stuff for the last
commit fest). At least it does not seem good to rush any decisions at
this stage.
>> FWIW, it would be really annoying to have documentation
>> requirements, actually, because that increases maintenance and I'm not
>> sure it's a good idea to add a module maintenance on top of what could
>> require more facility in the module to implement a test for a bug fix.
>
> Quite a few contrib modules have very limited documentation. I think
> it would be fine for this as well.
I'd argue that we should try to improve the existing documentation
rather that use that as an argument to add more modules with limited
documentation ;)
> Ugh... Sorry... I didn't realize that it needed a dedicated configure
> flag. When providing that flag it indeed installs the expected files.
> I guess that rules out testing against PGDG packages, because those
> packages almost certainly wouldn't specify this flag.
The CI enables the switch, and I've updated all my buildfarm members
to use it. In terms of coverage, that's already quite good.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2024-03-06 22:58:50 | Re: [PATCH] Exponential backoff for auth_delay |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-03-06 22:52:27 | Re: Stack overflow issue |