Re: Buildfarm: Enabling injection points on basilisk/dogfish (Alpine / musl)
Wolfgang Walther <walther@technowledgy.de>
From: Wolfgang Walther <walther@technowledgy.de>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-04-13T17:27:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan: > > On 2025-04-12 Sa 10:10 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 07:51:06PM +0200, Wolfgang Walther wrote: >>> With injection points enabled, I get the following errors in test_aio: >>> >>> >>> [15:14:45.408](0.000s) not ok 187 - worker: first hard IO error is >>> reported: >>> expected stderr >>> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) >>> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) # Failed test 'worker: first hard IO error is >>> reported: expected stderr' >>> # at t/001_aio.pl line 810. >>> [15:14:45.409](0.000s) # 'psql:<stdin>:88: ERROR: could >>> not read blocks 2..2 in file "base/5/16408": I/O error' >>> # doesn't match '(?^:ERROR:.*could not read blocks 2\.\.2 in file >>> \"base/.*\": Input/output error)' >>> It seems like it's just the error message that is different and has >>> "I/O" >>> instead of "Input/output"? >> Looks like it. >> >>> On a more general note, does enabling injection points make any >>> sense here? >> Yes, it does. >> >>> I see that coverage in the build farm is not very big. IIUC, those >>> are a >>> development tool, so might not be relevant, because nobody is >>> developing on >>> Alpine / musl? >> No, whether anyone develops on the platform is not a factor. One >> hasn't fully >> tested PostgreSQL until one builds with injection points. >> >> > > Here's a simple fix ... also removes some unnecessary escaping and > leaning toothpick syndrome. Confirmed - this works! Thanks, Wolfgang