Re: Testing with concurrent sessions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
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 01:49:38
Message-ID: 603c8f071001061749r62307aefm10eb3519d2cd68b2@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> 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.

It just seems crazy to me to try to test anything without proper
language bindings. Opening a psql session and parsing the results
seems extraordinarily painful. I wonder if it would make sense write
a small wrapper program that uses libpq and dumps out the results in a
format that is easy for Perl to parse.

Another idea would be to make a set of Perl libpq bindings that is
simpler than DBD::Pg and don't go through DBI. If we put those in the
main source tree (perhaps as a contrib module) they would be available
wherever we need them.

> 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.

That seems like a dead-end to me. It's hard for me to imagine it's
ever going to be more than a toy.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-01-07 02:26:29 Re: Testing with concurrent sessions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-01-07 01:46:11 Re: Status of plperl inter-sp calling