Thread: Regress tests to improve the function coverage of schemacmds and user and tablespace files
Regress tests to improve the function coverage of schemacmds and user and tablespace files
From
Haribabu kommi
Date:
Here I have added some more regression tests to improve the missing function coverage of
schemacmds.c, user.c and tablespace.c.
The added tests are mainly RENAME TO and OWNER TO support.
patches are attached in the mail.
please check and provide your suggestions.
Regards,
Hari babu.
Attachment
Re: Regress tests to improve the function coverage of schemacmds and user and tablespace files
From
Michael Paquier
Date:
Hi, On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Haribabu kommi <haribabu.kommi@huawei.com> wrote: > Here I have added some more regression tests to improve the missing function > coverage of schemacmds.c, user.c and tablespace.c. > The added tests are mainly RENAME TO and OWNER TO support. Could you add those patches to the next commitfest such as they don't get lost in the flow? Here is a URL to it: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view?id=20 Note that you will need a community account to register your patches. Thanks, -- Michael
Re: Regress tests to improve the function coverage of schemacmds and user and tablespace files
From
David Rowley
Date:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Haribabu kommi <haribabu.kommi@huawei.com> wrote:
Here I have added some more regression tests to improve the missing function coverage of
schemacmds.c, user.c and tablespace.c.
The added tests are mainly RENAME TO and OWNER TO support.
I've just had a look at both of these patches. All tests that have been added seem to cover new areas that are not previously tested, they also seem to cleanup properly after themselves, so I think these should be a worthwhile addition to the regression tests.
The only thing I can pickup on which is at fault is the the trailing white space
src/test/regress/sql/privileges.sql:837: trailing whitespace.
+\c -
But I can't imagine it's worth submitting a new patch to fix it.
I've marked the patch as ready for commiter
Regards
David Rowley
patches are attached in the mail.
please check and provide your suggestions.
Regards,
Hari babu.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: Regress tests to improve the function coverage of schemacmds and user and tablespace files
From
Kevin Grittner
Date:
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote: > I've just had a look at both of these patches. All tests that > have been added seem to cover new areas that are not previously > tested, they also seem to cleanup properly after themselves, so I > think these should be a worthwhile addition to the regression > tests. Thanks for reviewing! Did you happen to note the impact on `make check` runtime? There are many people who run that many times per day while working on development, so we try to keep new tests that significantly extend that separate. We haven't quite worked out the best way to exercise such longer-running tests, but I suspect we soon will. At any rate, this is a piece of information the committer will want, so you will be helping whoever that is if you can supply it. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Re: Regress tests to improve the function coverage of schemacmds and user and tablespace files
From
David Rowley
Date:
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> wrote:
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:Thanks for reviewing! Did you happen to note the impact on `make
> I've just had a look at both of these patches. All tests that
> have been added seem to cover new areas that are not previously
> tested, they also seem to cleanup properly after themselves, so I
> think these should be a worthwhile addition to the regression
> tests.
check` runtime? There are many people who run that many times per
day while working on development, so we try to keep new tests that
significantly extend that separate. We haven't quite worked out
the best way to exercise such longer-running tests, but I suspect
we soon will. At any rate, this is a piece of information the
committer will want, so you will be helping whoever that is if you
can supply it.
I've done a quick benchmark on this this morning.
Note that I'm using windows here and I used powershell to time the regression run with the following command:
PS D:\Postgres\b\src\tools\msvc> Measure-Command { .\vcregress.bat check }
I ran the tests 10 times each.
I ran the patched version first, then just did git reset --hard to revert the patched changes then I ran the tests again.
The average and median results over the 10 runs are as follows:
Patched Unpatched Time increased by
Average 48.23265888 47.70979854 101.10%
Median 47.8993686 47.51177815 100.82%
The slowdown is not too bad. It just around 1% increase of time.
I've attached the results in spreadsheet format.
Regards
David Rowley
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Attachment
Re: Regress tests to improve the function coverage of schemacmds and user and tablespace files
From
Haribabu kommi
Date:
<div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif";color:windowtext">On</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman","serif";color:windowtext">24November 2013 03:04 David Rowley wrote:</span><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"TimesNew Roman","serif";color:windowtext"> </span><p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:windowtext">>I'vedone a quick benchmark on this this morning.</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:windowtext">>Notethat I'm using windows here and I used powershell to time the regression run with the
followingcommand:</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">> </span><p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:windowtext">>PSD:\Postgres\b\src\tools\msvc> Measure-Command { .\vcregress.bat check }</span><p
class="MsoNormal"><spanstyle="color:windowtext">> </span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">>I
ranthe tests 10 times each.</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">>I ran the patched version
first,then just did git reset --hard to revert the patched changes then I ran the tests again.</span><p
class="MsoNormal"><spanstyle="color:windowtext">> </span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">>The
averageand median results over the 10 runs are as follows:</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:windowtext">> </span><pclass="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">>
Patched Unpatched Time increased by</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:windowtext">>Average 48.23265888 47.70979854 101.10%</span><p
class="MsoNormal"><spanstyle="color:windowtext">>Median 47.8993686 47.51177815
100.82%</span><pclass="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">> </span><p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:windowtext">> </span><pclass="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">>The slowdown is not too
bad.It just around 1% increase of time.</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">> </span><p
class="MsoNormal"><spanstyle="color:windowtext">>I've attached the results in spreadsheet format.</span><p
class="MsoNormal"><spanstyle="color:windowtext"> </span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Thanks for
thereview and benchmark test.</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><p
class="MsoNormal"><spanstyle="color:windowtext">Regards,</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Hari
babu.</span><pclass="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:windowtext"> </span></div>