Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqR_zj7Q_6gjC+vmLid8bt1aWAXp5hvHny65MOUb1gKufw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 12:38 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Isn't a full test with a separate initdb, create extension etc. a really
> heavyhanded way to test this? I mean that's a test where the setup takes
> up to 10s, whereas the actual runtime is in the millisecond range?
>
> Adding tests in this manner doesn't seem scalable to me.

How to include such kind of tests is in the heart of the discussion
since this patch has showed up. I think we are now close to 5
different opinions with 4 different hackers on the matter, the Riggs'
theorem applies nicely.

> I think we should rather add *one* test that does dump/restore over the
> normal regression test database. Something similar to the pg_upgrade
> tests. And then work at adding more content to the regression test
> database - potentially sourcing from src/test/modules.

If you are worrying about run time, pg_upgrade already exactly does
that. What would be the point to double the amount of time to do the
same thing in two different places?
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow a per-tablespace effective_io_concurrency setting