Re: [HACKERS] psql & regress tests - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] psql & regress tests
Date
Msg-id 318.942970643@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] psql & regress tests  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] psql & regress tests  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: [HACKERS] psql & regress tests  (wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> * Since no one has picked up on my idea to run the tests directly on the
>> backend, I will keep reiterating this idea until someone shuts me up

> Running the backend standalone does not use locking with other backends,
> so it is dangerous.

It wouldn't be particularly "dangerous" if we assume that no one else is
accessing the regression database.  What it *would* be is less useful at
catching problems.  Standalone mode wouldn't test the cross-backend
interlocking code at all.

Admittedly, running a bunch of tests serially isn't a strong stress test
of cross-backend behavior, but it's not as content-free a check as you
might think.  On my machine, at least, the old backend is still around
doing shutdown for the first half-second or so while the next one is
running.

What I'd really like to see is some deliberate parallelism in some of
the regress tests...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] psql & regress tests
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: pg version date file