Re: [sqlsmith] Failed to generate plan on lateral subqueries

From: Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [sqlsmith] Failed to generate plan on lateral subqueries
Date: 2015-12-13 01:14:20
Message-ID: 87wpsjduab.fsf@elite.ansel.ydns.eu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Stark writes:

> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 8:30 PM, Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de> wrote:
> When you hit the timeout is this implemented in your fuzzer or using
> statement_timeout? If the former, can you add a statement_timeout of
> just short of the timeout in the fuzzer and find cases where the
> planner might not be calling CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS frequently enough?

It's the latter. I don't think I can add a client-side timeout into
sqlsmith elegantly. IMHO it's better to write another test tool that
just re-runs the queries that were logged with a timeout by sqlsmith and
investigates their timeout-behavior more closely.

>> I do have some older numbers for line coverage from before the recent grammar extension:
>
> If you have a corpus of queries in a simple format it would be pretty
> convenient to add them in a regression test and then run make coverage
> to get html reports.

Hmm, I thought I found a workflow that would yield sqlsmith's coverage
without integrating it into the regession tests. This is what I did:

make install
initdb /tmp/gcov
pg_ctl -D /tmp/gcov start
make installcheck
pg_ctl -D /tmp/gcov stop
make coverage-clean
pg_ctl -D /tmp/gcov start
sqlsmith --target='dbname=regression' --max-queries=10000
pg_ctl -D /tmp/gcov stop
make coverage-html

It seems to yield a pure sqlsmith-only coverage report, as a "make
coverage-html" before the "make coverage-clean" yields a report with
much higher score. Maybe there are drawbacks to the workflow you are
suggesting? I just re-did it with the current sqlsmith code, and it's
up by 25% compared to the latest tested revision:

| revision | overall | parser |
|----------+---------+--------|
| a4c1989 | 26.0 | 20.4 |
| ee099e6 | 33.8 | 25.8 |

I also put the report here, in case someone wants to look at certain
details, or make suggestions into what directions to best extend the
grammar to increase coverage.

http://ansel.ydns.eu/~andreas/coverage/
http://ansel.ydns.eu/~andreas/gcov.tar.xz

> Did you publish the source already? I haven't been following all
> along, sorry if these are all answered questions.

It's not had a proper release yet, but the code is available via github
in all its rapid-prototypesque glory:

https://github.com/anse1/sqlsmith

regards,
Andreas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-12-13 02:15:52 Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-12-13 01:03:09 Re: [PATCH] PostGIS Doc Urls