Horton

Re: Weird test mixup

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-03-14T22:44:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 11:19 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Do they?  It'd be fairly easy to explain this if these things were
>> being run in "installcheck" style.  I'm not sure about CI, but from
>> memory, the buildfarm does use installcheck for some things.

> Right, as mentioned here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BhUKGJYhcG_o2nwSK6r01eOZJwNWUJUbX%3D%3DAVnW84f-%2B8yamQ%40mail.gmail.com
> That's the "running" test, which is like the old installcheck.

Hmm.  Seems like maybe we need to institute a rule that anything
using injection points has to be marked NO_INSTALLCHECK.  That's
kind of a big hammer though.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. injection_points: Store runtime conditions in private area

  2. Introduce private data area for injection points

  3. injection_points: Fix incorrect spinlock acquisition

  4. Make GIN tests using injection points concurrent-safe

  5. injection_points: Fix race condition with local injection point tests

  6. injection_points: Introduce runtime conditions

  7. Make GIN test using injection points repeatable

  8. Fix backstop in gin test if injection point is not reached

  9. Try to unbreak injection-fault tests in the buildfarm

  10. Disable tests using injection points in installcheck