On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > I don't think that's sufficient. make, and especially check-world, > should have a decent coverage of the code locally. Without having to > know about options like force_parallel_mode=regress. As e.g. evidenced > by the fact that Thomas's latest version crashed if you ran the tests > that way. If there's a few lines that aren't covered by the plain > tests, and more than a few node + parallelism combinations, I'm not > bothered much. But this is (soon hopefully was) a fairly complicated > piece of infrastructure - that should be exercised. If necessary that > can just be a BEGIN; SET LOCAL force_parallel_mode=on; query with > blessed descs;COMMIT or whatnot - it's not like we need something hugely > complicated here.
Yeah, we've been bitten before by changes that seemed OK when run without force_parallel_mode but misbehaved with that option, so it would be nice to improve things. Now, I'm not totally convinced that just adding a test around blessed tupledescs is really going to help very much - that option exercises a lot of code, and this is only one relatively small bit of it. But I'm certainly not objecting to the idea. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
