Re: Buildfarm: Enabling injection points on basilisk/dogfish (Alpine / musl) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Noah Misch
Subject Re: Buildfarm: Enabling injection points on basilisk/dogfish (Alpine / musl)
Date
Msg-id 20250413021039.bb.nmisch@google.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Buildfarm: Enabling injection points on basilisk/dogfish (Alpine / musl)  (Wolfgang Walther <walther@technowledgy.de>)
Responses Re: Buildfarm: Enabling injection points on basilisk/dogfish (Alpine / musl)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 07:51:06PM +0200, Wolfgang Walther wrote:
> With injection points enabled, I get the following errors in test_aio:
> 
> 
> [15:14:45.408](0.000s) not ok 187 - worker: first hard IO error is reported:
> expected stderr
> [15:14:45.409](0.000s)
> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) #   Failed test 'worker: first hard IO error is
> reported: expected stderr'
> #   at t/001_aio.pl line 810.
> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) #                   'psql:<stdin>:88: ERROR:  could
> not read blocks 2..2 in file "base/5/16408": I/O error'
> #     doesn't match '(?^:ERROR:.*could not read blocks 2\.\.2 in file
> \"base/.*\": Input/output error)'

> It seems like it's just the error message that is different and has "I/O"
> instead of "Input/output"?

Looks like it.

> On a more general note, does enabling injection points make any sense here?

Yes, it does.

> I see that coverage in the build farm is not very big. IIUC, those are a
> development tool, so might not be relevant, because nobody is developing on
> Alpine / musl?

No, whether anyone develops on the platform is not a factor.  One hasn't fully
tested PostgreSQL until one builds with injection points.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ranier Vilela
Date:
Subject: Re: Non-text mode for pg_dumpall
Next
From: Abhishek Chanda
Date:
Subject: Adding error messages to a few slash commands