On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 07:19:27PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 09:08:03AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think the core code should provide an "Injection Point" wait event
>> type and let extensions add specific wait events there, just like you
>> did for "Extension".
>
> Michael, could you accept the core code offering that, or not? If so, I am
> content to implement that. If not, for injection point wait events, I have
> just one priority. The isolation tester already detects lmgr locks without
> the test writer teaching it about each lock individually. I want it to have
> that same capability for injection points. Do you think we can find something
> everyone can accept, having that property? These wait events show up in tests
> only, and I'm happy to make the cosmetics be anything compatible with that
> detection ability.
Adding a wait event class for injection point is an interesting
suggestion that would simplify the detection in the isolation function
quite a bit. Are you sure that this is something that would be fit
for v17 material? TBH, I am not sure.
At the end, the test coverage has the highest priority and the bugs
you are addressing are complex enough that isolation tests of this
level are a necessity, so I don't object to what
inplace050-tests-inj-v2.patch introduces with the naming dependency
for the time being on HEAD. I'll just adapt and live with that
depending on what I deal with, while trying to improve HEAD later on.
I'm still wondering if there is something that could be more elegant
than a dedicated class for injection points, but I cannot think about
something that would be better for isolation tests on top of my head.
If there is something I can think of, I'll just go and implement it :)
--
Michael