I put together a patch which adds a regression test for large objects, hopefully attached to this message. I would like some critique of it, to see if I have gone about it the right way. Also I would be happy to hear any additional tests which should be added to it.
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Jeremy Drake wrote: > I noticed when I was working on a patch quite a while back that there are > no regression tests for large object support. I know, large objects > are not the most sexy part of the code-base, and I think they tend to be > ignored/forgotten most of the time. Which IMHO is all the more reason > they should have some regression tests. Otherwise, if someone managed to > break them somehow, it is quite likely not to be noticed for quite some > time. > > So in this vein, I have recently found myself with some free time, and a > desire to contribute something, and decided this would be the perfect > place to get my feet wet without stepping on any toes. > > I guess what I should ask is, would a patch to add a test for large > objects to the regression suite be well received? And, is there any > advice for how to go about making these tests? > > I am considering, and I think that in order to get a real test of the > large objects, I would need to load data into a large object which would > be sufficient to be loaded into more than one block (large object blocks > were 1 or 2K IIRC) so that the block boundary case could be tested. Is > there any precedent on where to grab such a large chunk of data from? I > was thinking about using an excerpt from a public domain text such as Moby > Dick, but on second thought binary data may be better to test things with. > > My current efforts, and probably the preliminary portion of the final > test, involves loading a small amount (less than one block) of text into a > large object inline from a sql script and calling the various functions > against it to verify that they do what they should. In the course of > doing so, I find that it is necessary to stash certain values across > statements (large object ids, large object 'handles'), and so far I am > using a temporary table to store these. Is this reasonable, or is there a > cleaner way to do that? > > -- One seldom sees a monument to a committee.
Description: Binary data
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org