Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Increase test coverage for worker_spi by ∞%

  1. coverage increase for worker_spi

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> — 2019-05-29T19:32:56Z

    Tom pointed out that coverage for worker_spi is 0%.  For a module that
only exists to provide coverage, that's pretty stupid.  This patch
increases coverage to 90.9% line-wise and 100% function-wise, which
seems like a sufficient starting point.

How would people feel about me getting this in master at this point in
the cycle, it being just some test code?  We can easily revert if
it seems too unstable.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera

  2. Re: coverage increase for worker_spi

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2019-05-29T22:39:36Z

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom pointed out that coverage for worker_spi is 0%.  For a module that
> only exists to provide coverage, that's pretty stupid.  This patch
> increases coverage to 90.9% line-wise and 100% function-wise, which
> seems like a sufficient starting point.

> How would people feel about me getting this in master at this point in
> the cycle, it being just some test code?  We can easily revert if
> it seems too unstable.

I'm not opposed to adding a new test case at this point in the cycle,
but as written this one seems more or less guaranteed to fail under
load.  You can't just sleep for worker_spi.naptime and expect that
the worker will certainly have run.

Perhaps you could use a plpgsql DO block with a loop to wait up
to X seconds until the expected state appears, for X around 120
to 180 seconds (compare poll_query_until in the TAP tests).

			regards, tom lane

  3. Re: coverage increase for worker_spi

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> — 2019-05-30T14:22:15Z

    On 2019-May-29, Tom Lane wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Tom pointed out that coverage for worker_spi is 0%.  For a module that
> > only exists to provide coverage, that's pretty stupid.  This patch
> > increases coverage to 90.9% line-wise and 100% function-wise, which
> > seems like a sufficient starting point.
> 
> > How would people feel about me getting this in master at this point in
> > the cycle, it being just some test code?  We can easily revert if
> > it seems too unstable.
> 
> I'm not opposed to adding a new test case at this point in the cycle,
> but as written this one seems more or less guaranteed to fail under
> load.

True.  Here's a version that should be more resilient.

One thing I noticed while writing it, though, is that worker_spi uses
the postgres database, instead of the contrib_regression database that
was created for it.  And we create a schema and a table there.  This is
going to get some eyebrows raised, I think, so I'll look into fixing
that as a bugfix before getting this commit in.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

  4. Re: coverage increase for worker_spi

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2019-05-30T16:51:27Z

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-May-29, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not opposed to adding a new test case at this point in the cycle,
>> but as written this one seems more or less guaranteed to fail under
>> load.

> True.  Here's a version that should be more resilient.

Hm, I don't understand how this works at all:

+			PERFORM pg_sleep(CASE WHEN count(*) = 0 THEN 0 ELSE 0.1 END)
+			FROM schema1.counted WHERE type = 'delta';
+			GET DIAGNOSTICS count = ROW_COUNT;

Given that it uses an aggregate, the ROW_COUNT must always be 1, no?

			regards, tom lane

  5. Re: coverage increase for worker_spi

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> — 2019-05-30T17:00:52Z

    On 2019-May-30, Tom Lane wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2019-May-29, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm not opposed to adding a new test case at this point in the cycle,
> >> but as written this one seems more or less guaranteed to fail under
> >> load.
> 
> > True.  Here's a version that should be more resilient.
> 
> Hm, I don't understand how this works at all:
> 
> +			PERFORM pg_sleep(CASE WHEN count(*) = 0 THEN 0 ELSE 0.1 END)
> +			FROM schema1.counted WHERE type = 'delta';
> +			GET DIAGNOSTICS count = ROW_COUNT;
> 
> Given that it uses an aggregate, the ROW_COUNT must always be 1, no?

Well, I was surprised to see the count(*) work there as an argument for
pg_sleep there at all frankly (maybe we are sleeping 0.1s more than we
really need, per your observation), but the row_count is concerned with
rows that have type = 'delta', which are deleted by the bgworker.  So
the test script job is done when the bgworker has run once through its
loop.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

  6. Re: coverage increase for worker_spi

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2019-05-30T17:46:18Z

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-May-30, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, I don't understand how this works at all:
>> 
>> +			PERFORM pg_sleep(CASE WHEN count(*) = 0 THEN 0 ELSE 0.1 END)
>> +			FROM schema1.counted WHERE type = 'delta';
>> +			GET DIAGNOSTICS count = ROW_COUNT;
>> 
>> Given that it uses an aggregate, the ROW_COUNT must always be 1, no?

> Well, I was surprised to see the count(*) work there as an argument for
> pg_sleep there at all frankly (maybe we are sleeping 0.1s more than we
> really need, per your observation), but the row_count is concerned with
> rows that have type = 'delta', which are deleted by the bgworker.  So
> the test script job is done when the bgworker has run once through its
> loop.

No, the row_count is going to report the number of rows returned by
the aggregate query, which is going to be one row, independently
of how many rows went into the aggregate.

regression=# do $$
declare c int;
begin
perform count(*) from tenk1;            
get diagnostics c = row_count;
raise notice 'c = %', c;
end$$;
psql: NOTICE:  c = 1
DO
regression=# do $$
declare c int;
begin
perform count(*) from tenk1 where false;
get diagnostics c = row_count;
raise notice 'c = %', c;
end$$;
psql: NOTICE:  c = 1
DO

I think you want to capture the actual aggregate output rather than
relying on row_count:

regression=# do $$
declare c int;
begin
c := count(*) from tenk1;
raise notice 'c = %', c;
end$$;
psql: NOTICE:  c = 10000
DO
regression=# do $$
declare c int;
begin
c := count(*) from tenk1 where false;
raise notice 'c = %', c;
end$$;
psql: NOTICE:  c = 0
DO

			regards, tom lane

  7. Re: coverage increase for worker_spi

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> — 2019-05-31T19:17:52Z

    On 2019-May-30, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> One thing I noticed while writing it, though, is that worker_spi uses
> the postgres database, instead of the contrib_regression database that
> was created for it.  And we create a schema and a table there.  This is
> going to get some eyebrows raised, I think, so I'll look into fixing
> that as a bugfix before getting this commit in.

Another thing I noticed when fixing *this*, in turn, is that if you load
worker_spi in shared_preload_libraries then the contrib_regression
database doesn't exist by the point that runs, so those workers fail to
start.  The dynamic one does start in the configured database.
I guess we could just ignore the failures and just rely on the dynamic
worker.

I ended up with these two patches.  I'm not sure about pushing
separately.  It seems pointless to backport the "fix" to back branches
anyway.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

  8. Re: coverage increase for worker_spi

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2019-06-01T17:23:05Z

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I ended up with these two patches.  I'm not sure about pushing
> separately.  It seems pointless to backport the "fix" to back branches
> anyway.

Patch passes the eyeball test, though I did not try to run it.
I concur with squashing into one commit and applying to HEAD only.

			regards, tom lane

  9. Re: coverage increase for worker_spi

    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> — 2019-06-02T04:35:14Z

    On 2019-Jun-01, Tom Lane wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > I ended up with these two patches.  I'm not sure about pushing
> > separately.  It seems pointless to backport the "fix" to back branches
> > anyway.
> 
> Patch passes the eyeball test, though I did not try to run it.
> I concur with squashing into one commit and applying to HEAD only.

Okay, pushed.  Let's see how it does, now.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services