| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: new heapcheck contrib module |
| Date: | 2020-10-22 14:46:51 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY39XWYmiEzypM-u-tEZ+PvRSC-MoqqK0+9EMmSXC1zhw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 10:28 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Considering this is a TAP test, why in the world is it designed to hide
> all details of any unexpected amcheck messages? Surely being able to
> see what amcheck is saying would be helpful here.
>
> IOW, don't have the tests abbreviate the module output with count(*),
> but return the full thing, and then use a regex to see if you got what
> was expected. If you didn't, the output will show what you did get.
Yeah, that thought crossed my mind, too. But I'm not sure it would
help in the case of this particular failure, because I think the
problem is that we're expecting to get complaints and instead getting
none.
It might be good to change it anyway, though.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-10-22 14:58:36 | Re: new heapcheck contrib module |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-10-22 14:28:24 | Re: new heapcheck contrib module |