Re: Testing with concurrent sessions

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Testing with concurrent sessions
Date: 2010-01-07 01:40:28
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Kevin Grittner
> <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> "David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Last I heard, Andrew was willing to require Test::More for
>>> testing, so that a Perl script could handle multiple psql
>>> connections (perhaps forked) and output test results based on
>>> them. But he wasn't as interested in requiring DBI and DBD::Pg,
>>> neither of which are in the Perl core and are more of a PITA to
>>> install (not huge, but the barrier might as well stay low).
>> OK, I've gotten familiar with Perl as a programming language and
>> tinkered with Test::More. What's not clear to me yet is what would
>> be considered good technique for launching several psql sessions
>> from that environment, interleaving commands to each of them, and
>> checking results from each of them as the test plan progresses. Any
>> code snippets or URLs to help me understand that are welcome. (It
>> seems clear enough with DBI, but I'm trying to avoid that per the
>> above.)
> Doing this without DBI is going to be ten times harder than doing it
> with DBI. Are we really sure that's not a viable option?

In the buildfarm? Yes, I think so. The philosophy of the buildfarm is
that it should do what you would do yourself by hand.

And adding DBI as a requirement for running a buildfarm member would be
a significant extra barrier to entry, ISTM. (I am very fond of DBI, and
use it frequently, BTW)

I'm persuadable on most things, but this one would take a bit of doing.

A parallel psql seems to me a better way to go. We talked about that a
while ago, but I don't recall what happened to it.



In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-01-07 01:46:11 Re: Status of plperl inter-sp calling
Previous Message Takahiro Itagaki 2010-01-07 01:37:40 Re: Bug with PATHs having non-ASCII characters