Re: Red-Black tree traversal tests

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Victor Drobny <v(dot)drobny(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Red-Black tree traversal tests
Date: 2017-09-10 17:32:22
Message-ID: 16674.1505064742@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> In the meantime, here's my version. Notable changes:

I went ahead and pushed this, with the removal of the preorder/postorder
code, so we can see if the buildfarm finds out anything interesting.
Feel free to continue to submit improvements though.

One thing that occurred to me is that as-is, this is entirely black-box
testing. It doesn't try to check that the tree actually satisfies the
RB invariants, which is something that is interesting for performance
reasons. (That is, the code could pass these tests even though it
produces an unbalanced tree with horrible performance.) Is it worth
adding logic for that? Not sure. It's not like we are actively
changing the RB code or have reason to think it is buggy.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-09-10 18:39:40 relation mapping file checksum failure
Previous Message Beena Emerson 2017-09-10 17:04:21 Re: increasing the default WAL segment size