From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Fix hostaddr crash during non-blocking cancellation |
Date: | 2025-07-07 15:34:25 |
Message-ID: | CAOYmi+k5Q53iE9Y_yJjm_+BCNOsy467exDq2FTFdTpOnJpN8pQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 11:54 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I hadn't noticed (or maybe I forgot) this thread, so when the
> same problem was reported at [1] I just went ahead and pushed the
> submitted patch, which is only cosmetically different from your 0001.
> Apologies for treading on your toes.
No worries, as long as it's fixed I'm happy!
(And many thanks to Greg for the review; sorry for not getting to it
fast enough.)
> As for the question of how to test this sort of thing, I'm not
> too excited about the narrow-gauge test case your 0002 proposes.
> What I did for manual testing in [1] was to hack the postgres_fdw
> tests to connect using hostaddr instead of the default. I think
> formalizing that sort of approach would yield much better coverage.
I agree that overriding connection defaults probably gets us better
overall coverage -- I just think I got pushback in the past for adding
"multipliers" in that way. But I won't argue against test coverage as
long as we get it in the end. :D
That said, I am planning to get noisier about the lack of "TCP suite".
The number of tests we've discarded just because we don't have a
current place to put them keeps slowly growing, and my long-term
intent with 0002 was to actually add a new place for them. Whatever
formalization we choose, let's please keep a TCP-only cluster
somewhere instead of forcing people to try to find a least-bad suite
to slot new tests into.
Thanks!
--Jacob
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2025-07-07 15:37:59 | Re: Fix some inconsistencies with open-coded visibilitymap_set() callers |
Previous Message | Andrei Lepikhov | 2025-07-07 15:13:27 | Re: Memory consumed by paths during partitionwise join planning |