Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> writes:
> That said, I don't think it's important to run the fuzzer in the
> buildfarm. It should be enough to do that every once in a while, when
> you modify the COPY FROM code (or something else that you want to fuzz
> test). But we could easily include the test inputs generated by the
> fuzzer in the regular tests. We've usually been very frugal in adding
> tests, though, to keep the time it takes to run all the tests short.
Yeah, I think there's a lot of value in the fact that it doesn't
take too long to run the core regression tests, or even check-world.
Also, given you mentioned that this fuzzer bases its work partly
on code examination, it seems like the right procedure would be to
re-invoke the fuzzer after changes, not just blindly re-use the
test cases it made for the old code. So it seems like the thing
we want here is documentation or a test harness for using the
fuzzer, but not direct incorporation of test cases.
regards, tom lane