On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 1:54 PM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> If I were making a list of changes always welcome post-beta, it wouldn't
> include adding wait event types. But I don't hesitate to add one if it
> unblocks a necessary test for a bug present in all versions.
However, injection points themselves are not present in all versions,
so even if we invent a new wait-event type, we'll have difficulty
testing older versions, unless we're planning to back-patch all of
that infrastructure, which I assume we aren't.
Personally, I think the fact that injection point wait events were put
under Extension is a design mistake that should be corrected before 17
is out of beta.
> Here's what I'm reading for each person's willingness to tolerate each option:
>
> STRATEGY | Paquier | Misch | Haas
> --------------------------------------------------------
> new "Injection Point" wait type | maybe | yes | yes
> INJECTION_POINT(...) naming | yes | yes | unknown
> isolation spec says event names | yes | no | unknown
>
> Corrections and additional strategy lines welcome. Robert, how do you judge
> the lines where I've listed you as "unknown"?
I'd tolerate INJECTION_POINT() if we had no other option but I think
it's clearly inferior. Does the last line refer to putting the
specific wait event names in the isolation spec file? If so, I'd also
be fine with that.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com