Re: Weird test mixup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Weird test mixup
Date
Msg-id ZfOABU4ahF2QZQ6N@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Weird test mixup  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Weird test mixup
Re: Weird test mixup
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 06:19:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Do they?  It'd be fairly easy to explain this if these things were
> being run in "installcheck" style.  I'm not sure about CI, but from
> memory, the buildfarm does use installcheck for some things.
>
> I wonder if it'd be wise to adjust the injection point stuff so that
> it's active in only the specific database the injection point was
> activated in.

It can be made optional by extending InjectionPointAttach() to
specify a database OID or a database name.  Note that
041_checkpoint_at_promote.pl wants an injection point to run in the
checkpointer, where we don't have a database requirement.

Or we could just disable runningcheck because of the concurrency
requirement in this test.  The test would still be able to run, just
less times.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Weird test mixup
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: pg16: XX000: could not find pathkey item to sort