From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Poorly thought out code in vacuum |
Date: | 2012-01-06 17:45:55 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYREkwP0nRrXKR6PRrxJjYb_yo8VdVWrXug3YGMgL=v7Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> So at this point I've got serious doubts as to the quality of testing of
>>> that whole patch, not just this part.
>
>> I tested the case where we skip a block during the first pass, but I
>> admit that I punted on testing the case where we skip a block during
>> the second pass, because I couldn't think of a good way to exercise
>> it. Any suggestions?
>
> Hack ConditionalLockBufferForCleanup to have a 50% probability of
> failure regardless of anything else, for instance via
>
> static int ctr = 0;
>
> if ((++ctr) % 2)
> return false;
Oh, that's brilliant. OK, I'll go try that.
Note to self: Try to remember to take that hack back out before committing.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-01-06 18:26:14 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-01-06 17:40:46 | Re: pgsphere |