Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion
Date: 2014-11-03 18:06:39
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaHf7uBLKvX1Uy6EmMvdA8MDAWH2kFBmvY+Eht=stGiOQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> OK, I think I'm happy with this as a general point.

Cool!

> How will we automatically test this code?

Good question. I can see two possible approaches:

1. We write a test_group_locking harness along the lines of
test_shm_mq and test_decoding and put that in contrib.

2. We wait until higher-level facilities built on top of this are
available and get regression test coverage of this code via those
higher-level modules.

Personally, I can't imagine debugging this code without writing some
kind of test harness that only does locking; I don't want my locking
bugs to be mixed with my planner and executor bugs. But I could go
either way on actually putting that code in contrib.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2014-11-03 18:56:26 Re: Let's drop two obsolete features which are bear-traps for novices
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2014-11-03 18:02:20 Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion