On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote:
> I've used amcheck [2] to test this latest revision -- the tool ought
> to not see any problems with any index created with the patch applied.
> Reviewers might find it helpful to use amcheck, too. As 9.6 is
> stabilized, I anticipate that amcheck will give us a fighting chance
> at early detection of any bugs that might have slipped into tuplesort,
> or a B-Tree operator class. Since we still don't even have one single
> test of the external sort code [3], it's just as well. If we wanted to
> test external sorting, maybe we'd do that by adding tests to amcheck,
> that are not run by default, much like test_decoding, which tests
> logical decoding but is not targeted by "make installcheck"; that
> would allow the tests to be fairly comprehensive without being
> annoying. Using amcheck neatly side-steps issues with the portability
> of "expected" pg_regress output when collatable type sorting is
> tested.

Note that amcheck V2, which I posted just now features tests for
external sorting. The way these work requires discussion. The tests
are motivated in part by the recent strxfrm() debacle, as well as by
the need to have at least some test coverage for this patch. It's bad
that external sorting currently has no test coverage. We should try
and do better there as part of this overhaul to tuplesort.c.

Peter Geoghegan

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to