Re: Improvements and additions to COPY progress reporting - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josef Šimánek
Subject Re: Improvements and additions to COPY progress reporting
Date
Msg-id CAFp7QwqKwZikq6fdOC7+EShw+ozWzNo63e4PFatcFvAGH4qaag@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Improvements and additions to COPY progress reporting  (Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Improvements and additions to COPY progress reporting  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
čt 11. 2. 2021 v 15:27 odesílatel Matthias van de Meent
<boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> napsal:
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 07:43, Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 6:02 PM Matthias van de Meent
> > <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Also, you can add this to the current commitfest.
> > >
> > > See https://commitfest.postgresql.org/32/2977/
> > >
> > > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 12:53, Josef Šimánek <josef.simanek@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OK, would you mind to integrate my regression test initial patch as
> > > > well in v3 or should I submit it later in a separate way?
> > >
> > > Attached, with minor fixes
> >
> > Why do we need to have a new test file progress.sql for the test
> > cases? Can't we add them into existing copy.sql or copy2.sql? Or do
> > you have a plan to add test cases into progress.sql for other progress
> > reporting commands?
>
> I don't mind moving the test into copy or copy2, but the main reason
> to put it in a seperate file is to test the 'copy' component of the
> feature called 'progress reporting'. If the feature instead is 'copy'
> and 'progress reporting' is part of that feature, then I'd put it in
> the copy-tests, but because the documentation of this has it's own
> docs page  'progress reporting', and because 'copy' is a subsection of
> that, I do think that this feature warrants its own regression test
> file.
>
> There are no other tests for the progress reporting feature yet,
> because COPY ... FROM is the only command that is progress reported
> _and_ that can fire triggers while running the command, so checking
> the progress view during the progress reported command is only
> feasable in COPY progress reporting. To test the other progress
> reporting views, we would need multiple sessions, which I believe is
> impossible in this test format. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I'd
> love to add tests for the other components. That will not be in this
> patchset, though.
>
> > IMO, it's better not add any new test file but add the tests to existing files.
>
> In general I agree, but in some cases (e.g. new system component, new
> full-fledged feature), new test files are needed. I think that this
> could be one of those cases.

I have split it since it should be the start of progress reporting
testing at all. If you better consider this as part of COPY testing,
feel free to move it to already existing copy testing related files.
There's no real reason to keep it separated if not needed.

>
> With regards,
>
> Matthias van de Meent



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: ERROR: invalid spinlock number: 0
Next
From: "Jonah H. Harris"
Date:
Subject: Re: Extensibility of the PostgreSQL wire protocol