On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 12:02 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 2:22 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> In the longer term, it's annoying that we have no test methodology > >> for this other than "manually set a breakpoint here". > > > One of the methods I see is we can just add some GUC variable for some > > action injection. basically it adds some code based on the GUC like > this; > > See my straw-man proposal downthread. I'm not very excited about putting > things like this into the standard build, because it's really hard to be > sure that there are no security-hazard-ish downsides of putting in ways to > get at testing behaviors from standard SQL. And then there's the question > of whether you're adding noticeable overhead to production builds. So a > loadable module that can use some existing hook to provide the needed > behavior seems like a better plan to me, whenever we can do it that way. > > In general, though, it seems like we've seldom regretted investments in > test tooling. > > regards, tom lane >
Thanks for your explanation, I checked it again and it looks a very clean method. The attached is a draft patch based on my understanding. Hope I didn't misunderstand you.. -- Best Regards Andy Fan
v1-0001-test_module-used-for-concurrency-case-simulation.patch
Description: Binary data
