Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 4:41 AM Tom Lane wrote: > > Michael Paquier writes: > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:44:45PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > >> I just wanted to let you know that TimescaleDB uses > >> pg_isolation_regress and occasionally there are reports from some > >> suffering/puzzled users/developers, e.g. [1]. Not 100% sure if it > >> makes investing the time into backpatching worth it. However if > >> someone could do it, it would be nice. > > > FWIW, I am not really sure that this is important enough to justify a > > back-patch, even it is true that there have been cases in the past > > where extra binaries got added in minor releases. > > Yeah, I think adding a binary in a minor release is a Big Deal to > packagers. I doubt that the case here justifies that. +1. Given the number of complaints from people lacking it since the binary was first created, I can't see how that's a priority that justifies that. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress
Michael Paquier writes: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:44:45PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: >> I just wanted to let you know that TimescaleDB uses >> pg_isolation_regress and occasionally there are reports from some >> suffering/puzzled users/developers, e.g. [1]. Not 100% sure if it >> makes investing the time into backpatching worth it. However if >> someone could do it, it would be nice. > FWIW, I am not really sure that this is important enough to justify a > back-patch, even it is true that there have been cases in the past > where extra binaries got added in minor releases. Yeah, I think adding a binary in a minor release is a Big Deal to packagers. I doubt that the case here justifies that. regards, tom lane
Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:44:45PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > I just wanted to let you know that TimescaleDB uses > pg_isolation_regress and occasionally there are reports from some > suffering/puzzled users/developers, e.g. [1]. Not 100% sure if it > makes investing the time into backpatching worth it. However if > someone could do it, it would be nice. FWIW, I am not really sure that this is important enough to justify a back-patch, even it is true that there have been cases in the past where extra binaries got added in minor releases. -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress
Hi hackers, > Any opinions on backpatching? > Other than src/test/modules/brin, the ISOLATION users don't look > much like real extensions (rather than test scaffolding), either. > Out of core, the only thing I can see with isolation tests is rum, but > it uses a workaround to have an access to the necessary binaries. I just wanted to let you know that TimescaleDB uses pg_isolation_regress and occasionally there are reports from some suffering/puzzled users/developers, e.g. [1]. Not 100% sure if it makes investing the time into backpatching worth it. However if someone could do it, it would be nice. [1]: https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/issues/1655 -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev
Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020, 09:00 Michael Paquier, wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 01:06:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Other than src/test/modules/brin, the ISOLATION users don't look > > much like real extensions (rather than test scaffolding), either. > > If you discount test scaffolding modules then the use-counts are > > more like 4 to 1. > > Out of core, the only thing I can see with isolation tests is rum, but > it uses a workaround to have an access to the necessary binaries. > I would've liked to backpatch but don't really care very much. If it's going to take time away from others things, don't do it. I landed up having to make my own lightly customised postgres packages to use as test workflow inputs anyway. So I included the full set of isolation test utilities, packaged the test inputs etc. I'd prefer not to have to do it, but it's done. So long as it's fixed going forward it didn't matter that much. Now server_version_num on the other hand ... :P
Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 01:06:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Other than src/test/modules/brin, the ISOLATION users don't look > much like real extensions (rather than test scaffolding), either. > If you discount test scaffolding modules then the use-counts are > more like 4 to 1. Out of core, the only thing I can see with isolation tests is rum, but it uses a workaround to have an access to the necessary binaries. -- Michael signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress
Alvaro Herrera writes: > I forgot to mention that I considered backpatching this and decided not > to, but only because it might confuse packagers if they see unrecognized > files in the installation. I realize now that c3a0818460a8 was > back-patched. Any opinions on backpatching? We've added new installed files in minor releases before, true. But I agree it's something to do only when pretty important, and I'm not sure this clears the bar. TAP tests (the facility added by that other patch) seem way more commonly useful than isolation tests. Quickly counting the uses in our existing in-core extensions, I see TAP_TESTS: 3 contrib, 5 src/test/modules ISOLATION: 1 contrib, 3 src/test/modules Other than src/test/modules/brin, the ISOLATION users don't look much like real extensions (rather than test scaffolding), either. If you discount test scaffolding modules then the use-counts are more like 4 to 1. So I'm -0.1 or so on backpatching. regards, tom lane
Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress
On 2020-Oct-15, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Pushed, thanks. I forgot to mention that I considered backpatching this and decided not to, but only because it might confuse packagers if they see unrecognized files in the installation. I realize now that c3a0818460a8 was back-patched. Any opinions on backpatching?
Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress
On 2020-Sep-30, Craig Ringer wrote: > On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 22:09, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > I happened to come across this thread by accident, and I tend to agree > > that we need to install both isolationtester and pg_isolation_regress to > > the pgxs dirs, just like we do pg_regress. I can't find that > > isolationtester is installed anywhere though; maybe that changed after > > you posted this. Anyway, this version of the patch installs both. > I think rules were added to allow the isolation tester to be installed with > an explicit make -C src/test/isolation install, but not added to the > default "install" target. > > I agree it should just be installed. Pushed, thanks.
Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 22:09, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2018-Jun-01, Craig Ringer wrote: > > > On 28 May 2018 at 15:06, Craig Ringer wrote: > > > > > Per topic, the Pg makefiles install pg_regress (for use by extensions) > and > > > htey install the isolationtester, but they don't install > > > pg_isolation_regress. > > > > > > We should install it too. > > I happened to come across this thread by accident, and I tend to agree > that we need to install both isolationtester and pg_isolation_regress to > the pgxs dirs, just like we do pg_regress. I can't find that > isolationtester is installed anywhere though; maybe that changed after > you posted this. Anyway, this version of the patch installs both. > Thanks. I think rules were added to allow the isolation tester to be installed with an explicit make -C src/test/isolation install, but not added to the default "install" target. I agree it should just be installed. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ 2ndQuadrant - PostgreSQL Solutions for the Enterprise
Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress
On 2018-Jun-01, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 28 May 2018 at 15:06, Craig Ringer wrote: > > > Per topic, the Pg makefiles install pg_regress (for use by extensions) and > > htey install the isolationtester, but they don't install > > pg_isolation_regress. > > > > We should install it too. I happened to come across this thread by accident, and I tend to agree that we need to install both isolationtester and pg_isolation_regress to the pgxs dirs, just like we do pg_regress. I can't find that isolationtester is installed anywhere though; maybe that changed after you posted this. Anyway, this version of the patch installs both. I did search for evidence in the Makefile's git log that would remove a recipe for installing isolationtester; couldn't find anything. > I'm wondering if I should add ISOLATION support to PGXS too, like we have > REGRESS . This was covered by Michael's d3c09b9b1307 a few months after you posted. -- Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services >From 8c81d47ee10bee52b53c8092d8724ce39fed3dfa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Craig Ringer Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 11:26:09 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v3] Install pg_isolation_regress and isolationtester --- src/test/isolation/Makefile | 16 ++-- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/test/isolation/Makefile b/src/test/isolation/Makefile index da5e088bdd..d23e2cec64 100644 --- a/src/test/isolation/Makefile +++ b/src/test/isolation/Makefile @@ -18,12 +18,16 @@ OBJS = \ all: isolationtester$(X) pg_isolation_regress$(X) -# Though we don't install these binaries, build them during installation -# (including temp-install). Otherwise, "make -j check-world" and "make -j -# installcheck-world" would spawn multiple, concurrent builds in this -# directory. Later builds would overwrite files while earlier builds are -# reading them, causing occasional failures. -install: | all +install: all installdirs + $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) pg_isolation_regress$(X) '$(DESTDIR)$(pgxsdir)/$(subdir)/pg_isolation_regress$(X)' + $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) isolationtester$(X) '$(DESTDIR)$(pgxsdir)/$(subdir)/isolationtester$(X)' + +installdirs: + $(MKDIR_P) '$(DESTDIR)$(pgxsdir)/$(subdir)' + +uninstall: + rm -f '$(DESTDIR)$(pgxsdir)/$(subdir)/pg_isolation_regress$(X)' + rm -f '$(DESTDIR)$(pgxsdir)/$(subdir)/isolationtester$(X)' submake-regress: $(MAKE) -C $(top_builddir)/src/test/regress pg_regress.o -- 2.20.1
Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress
On 28 May 2018 at 15:06, Craig Ringer wrote: > Hi > > Per topic, the Pg makefiles install pg_regress (for use by extensions) and > htey install the isolationtester, but they don't install > pg_isolation_regress. > > We should install it too. > Now with a patch that isn't brain-dead. I'm wondering if I should add ISOLATION support to PGXS too, like we have REGRESS . -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services From 819eda0c40617b57a8ddd1b5d4d30de453bc11ec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Craig Ringer Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 11:26:09 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v2] Install pg_isolation_regress not just isolationtester --- src/test/isolation/Makefile | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/src/test/isolation/Makefile b/src/test/isolation/Makefile index c3c8280ea2..911bb5f43a 100644 --- a/src/test/isolation/Makefile +++ b/src/test/isolation/Makefile @@ -64,3 +64,9 @@ installcheck-prepared-txns: all temp-install check-prepared-txns: all temp-install $(pg_isolation_regress_check) --schedule=$(srcdir)/isolation_schedule prepared-transactions + +installdirs: + $(MKDIR_P) '$(DESTDIR)$(pgxsdir)/$(subdir)' + +install: all installdirs + $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) pg_isolation_regress$(X) '$(DESTDIR)$(pgxsdir)/$(subdir)/pg_isolation_regress$(X)' -- 2.14.3
[PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress
Hi Per topic, the Pg makefiles install pg_regress (for use by extensions) and htey install the isolationtester, but they don't install pg_isolation_regress. We should install it too. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services From 47857238a47653081e4d88e2ba14f8712349ebbd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Craig RingerDate: Mon, 28 May 2018 15:04:42 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Install pg_isolation_regress --- src/test/regress/GNUmakefile | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/src/test/regress/GNUmakefile b/src/test/regress/GNUmakefile index 587de56fb9..c1fe375f46 100644 --- a/src/test/regress/GNUmakefile +++ b/src/test/regress/GNUmakefile @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ $(top_builddir)/src/port/pg_config_paths.h: $(top_builddir)/src/Makefile.global install: all installdirs $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) pg_regress$(X) '$(DESTDIR)$(pgxsdir)/$(subdir)/pg_regress$(X)' + $(INSTALL_PROGRAM) pg_isolation_regress$(X) '$(DESTDIR)$(pgxsdir)/$(subdir)/pg_isolation_regress$(X)' installdirs: $(MKDIR_P) '$(DESTDIR)$(pgxsdir)/$(subdir)' -- 2.14.3