Re: Adding facility for injection points (or probe points?) for more advanced tests
От | Nathan Bossart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Adding facility for injection points (or probe points?) for more advanced tests |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20240105162751.GA2168314@nathanxps13 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Adding facility for injection points (or probe points?) for more advanced tests (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 08:38:22AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 04:31:02PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote: >> Rather than defining a module somewhere that tests would need to load, >> should we just put the common callbacks in the core server? Unless there's >> a strong reason to define them elsewhere, that could be a nice way to save >> a step in the tests. > > Nah, having some pre-existing callbacks existing in the backend is > against the original minimalistic design spirit. These would also > require an SQL interface, and the interface design also depends on the > functions registering them when pushing down custom conditions. > Pushing that down to extensions to do what they want will lead to less > noise, particularly if you consider that we will most likely want to > tweak the callback interfaces for backpatched bugs. That's also why I > think contrib/ is not a good idea, src/test/modules/ serving the > actual testing purpose here. Ah, so IIUC we'd have to put some functions in pg_proc.dat even though they would only be used for a handful of tests in special builds. I'd agree that's not desirable. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: