Re: Add more regression tests for dbcommands

Hi,

Attached is an updated patch that does only 1 CREATE DATABASE and reuses
that for all other tests.
The code-coverage with this patch goes up from 36% to 70%.

--
Robins Tharakan

On 13 May 2013 21:04, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> I believe Tom / Andres and Fabien all have valid points.
>
> Net-net, I believe the tests although non-negotiable, are not required to
> be in make-check. For now, its the slow tests that are the pain points
> here, and then I would soon try to prune them and commit once again.
>
> Whether it goes in make-check or not is obviously not discretion but to me
> their importance is undoubted since I am sure they increase code-coverage.
> Actually that is 'how' I create those tests, I look at untouched code and
> create new tests that check untouched code.
>
> Would try to revert with a faster script (preferably with minimal
> CREATE/DROP).
>
> --
> Robins Tharakan
>
>
> On 13 May 2013 20:30, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-13 16:52:08 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > >>Would you be okay if there is one/a few effective create/drop (some
>> tests
>> > >>check that the create or drop fails e.g. depending on permissions,
>> which
>> > >>ISTM is not tested anywhere else), so that tests for various ALTER
>> > >>DATABASE commands are combined together onto these databases?
>> > >
>> > >TBH, I do not see that such tests are worth adding, if they are going
>> to
>> > >significantly slow down the core regression tests. Those tests are run
>> > >probably hundreds of times a day, in aggregate across all Postgres
>> > >developers. Adding ten seconds or whatever this would add is a major
>> > >cost, while the benefit appears trivial.
>> >
>> > >We could consider adding expensive low-value tests like these to some
>> > >alternate regression target that's only exercised by buildfarm members,
>> > >perhaps. But I think there's probably a point of diminishing returns
>> > >even in that context.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure that the tests are "low value", because a commit that would
>> > generate a failure on a permission check test would be a potential
>> security
>> > issue for Pg.
>>
>> > As for the cost, if the proposed tests are indeed too costly, what is
>> not
>> > necessarily the case for what I have seen, I do not think that it would
>> be a
>> > great problem to have two set of tests, with one a superset of the
>> other,
>> > with some convention.
>>
>> Well, tests like permission tests aren't the expensive part. The actual
>> CREATE/DROP DATABASE you do is. The latter essentially are already
>> tested by the buildfarm already.
>> So, trimming the patch to do only the fast stuff should be less
>> controversial?
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Andres Freund
>>
>> --
>> Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
>> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
>>
>
>