---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:11:24 -0400 Subject: Re: 8.5 release timetable, again
What I'd like to see is some sort of test mechanism for WAL recovery. What I've done sometimes in the past (and recently had to fix the tests to re-enable) is to kill -9 a backend immediately after running the regression tests, let the system replay the WAL for the tests, and then take a pg_dump and compare that to the dump gotten after a conventional run. However this is quite haphazard since (a) the regression tests aren't especially designed to exercise all of the WAL logic, and (b) pg_dump might not show the effects of some problems, particularly not corruption in non-system indexes. It would be worth the trouble to create a more specific test methodology.
I hacked mdwrite so that it had a static int counter. When the counter hit 400 and if the guc_of_death was set, it would write out a partial block (to simulate a partial page write) and then PANIC. I have some Perl code that runs against the database doing a bunch of updates until the database dies. Then when it can reconnect again it makes sure the data reflects what Perl thinks it should. This is how I (belatedly) found and traced down the bug in the visibility bit. (What I was trying to do is determine if my toying around with XLogInsert was breaking anything. Since the regression suit wouldn't show me a problem if one existed, I came up with this. Then I found things were broken even before I started toying with it...)
I don't know how lucky I was to hit open a test that found an already existing bug. I have to assume I was somewhat lucky, simply because it took a run of many hours or overnight (with a simulated crash every 2 minutes or so) to reliably detect the problem. But how do you turn something like this into a regression test? Scattering the code with intentional crash inducing code that is there to exercise the error recover parts seems like it would be quite a mess.
In short: merely making the tests bigger doesn't impress me in the least. Focused testing on areas we aren't covering at all could be worth the trouble.
Do you have suggestions on what other areas need it?
