Re: Missing program_XXX calling in pgbench tests

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, 'Fujii Masao' <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
Cc: "'pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Missing program_XXX calling in pgbench tests
Date: 2025-06-05 07:19:48
Message-ID: 118fbf15-9734-4a83-ac2c-0e2d8d1afdc4@eisentraut.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 05.06.25 05:00, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> Dear Fujii-san,
>
>> A bit similar discussion came up before regarding pgbench and program_xxx_ok
>> in [1], but it seems that change was never applied.
>
> I didn't know that, thanks for sharing. ISTM, it tried to extend function to test the
> shorter options.
>
> While verifying the idea, I found that pg_config and pg_bsd_indent have not been
> supported "-V" option yet. They must address the option ro improve test functions.
>
> Attached patch set implemented the idea. 0001 is my original point and can be
> backported. 0002-0004 needs API changes so they aim to be applied for HEAD.
>
> If possible, I want to fork another thread to discuss 0002-0004 and want to
> concentrate 0001 here.

Patch 0001 looks very sensible.

I don't think we need to bother we the other ones. pg_config works
differently than the other programs anyway, because --version does not
exit the program. And pg_bsd_indent is an externally maintained
program. So I think it is ok if these two are intentionally different.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2025-06-05 07:22:48 Re: Issues with 2PC at recovery: CLOG lookups and GlobalTransactionData
Previous Message jian he 2025-06-05 07:16:34 Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands