Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Neha Khatri wrote: >> With this, if an installcheck is done, that might also have been done with >> the expectation that the output will be in 'escape' format. In that case, >> how much is it justified to hard code the format for regression database? >> However, I agree that there are not many bytea outputs in the current >> regression suite > I don't understand this. People don't run the regression tests to get > the output. They run the regression tests to see whether they pass. > While it may not be possible to make them pass with arbitrarily-crazy > settings, that's not a reason not to patch up the cases we can handle > sanely. I think the question that has to be settled to move this forward is whether we're content with hard-wiring something for bytea_output (as in Jeff's installcheck_bytea_fix_2.patch, which I concur with Peter is superior to installcheck_bytea_fix_1.patch), or whether we want to hold out for a more flexible solution, probably about like what I sketched in https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/30246.1487202663%40sss.pgh.pa.us I think the more flexible solution is definitely a desirable place to get to, but somehow I doubt it's going to happen for v10. Meanwhile the question is whether adding more hard-wired behavior in pg_regress is desirable or not. I tend to vote with Andres that it's not worth the trouble, but considering that it's only a 2-line change, I won't stand in the way if some other committer is convinced this is an improvement. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Neha Khatri wrote: > Sorry about the naive question, but if someone has set the GUC bytea_output > = 'escape', then the intention seem to be to obtain the output in 'escape' > format for bytea. > With this, if an installcheck is done, that might also have been done with > the expectation that the output will be in 'escape' format. In that case, > how much is it justified to hard code the format for regression database? > However, I agree that there are not many bytea outputs in the current > regression suite I don't understand this. People don't run the regression tests to get the output. They run the regression tests to see whether they pass. While it may not be possible to make them pass with arbitrarily-crazy settings, that's not a reason not to patch up the cases we can handle sanely. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Neha Khatri wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> On 2/14/17 16:50, Jeff Janes wrote: >> > make installcheck currently fails against a server running >> > with bytea_output = escape. >> > >> > Making it succeed is fairly easy, and I think it is worth doing. >> > >> > Attached are two options for doing that. One overrides bytea_output >> > locally where-ever needed, and the other overrides it for the entire >> > 'regression' database. >> >> I would use option 2 here (ALTER DATABASE) and be done with it. Some >> people didn't like using ALTER DATABASE, but it's consistent with >> existing use. If someone wants to change that, that can be independent >> of this issue. > > > Sorry about the naive question, but if someone has set the GUC > bytea_output = 'escape', then the intention seem to be to obtain the output > in 'escape' format for bytea. > With this, if an installcheck is done, that might also have been done with > the expectation that the output will be in 'escape' format. In that case, > how much is it justified to hard code the format for regression database? > However, I agree that there are not many bytea outputs in the current > regression suite > > At a high level (which is all I know here) If we leave behind tests that at least exercise bytea_output='escape' mode to ensure it is functioning properly then I'd have no problem having the testing of other features dependent upon bytea_output, but that are coded to compare against the now-default output format, set that runtime configurable mode to that which they require. If the choice of output mode is simply a byproduct we should be free to set it to whatever we need for the currently executing test. If a simple way of doing this involves fixing the default to what the suite expects and one-off changing it when testing escape mode stuff that seems like a reasonable position to take. Having to set bytea_output when it isn't the item under test seems like its just going to add noise. David J.
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2/14/17 16:50, Jeff Janes wrote: > > make installcheck currently fails against a server running > > with bytea_output = escape. > > > > Making it succeed is fairly easy, and I think it is worth doing. > > > > Attached are two options for doing that. One overrides bytea_output > > locally where-ever needed, and the other overrides it for the entire > > 'regression' database. > > I would use option 2 here (ALTER DATABASE) and be done with it. Some > people didn't like using ALTER DATABASE, but it's consistent with > existing use. If someone wants to change that, that can be independent > of this issue. Sorry about the naive question, but if someone has set the GUC bytea_output = 'escape', then the intention seem to be to obtain the output in 'escape' format for bytea. With this, if an installcheck is done, that might also have been done with the expectation that the output will be in 'escape' format. In that case, how much is it justified to hard code the format for regression database? However, I agree that there are not many bytea outputs in the current regression suite Regards, Neha
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
On 2/14/17 16:50, Jeff Janes wrote: > make installcheck currently fails against a server running > with bytea_output = escape. > > Making it succeed is fairly easy, and I think it is worth doing. > > Attached are two options for doing that. One overrides bytea_output > locally where-ever needed, and the other overrides it for the entire > 'regression' database. I would use option 2 here (ALTER DATABASE) and be done with it. Some people didn't like using ALTER DATABASE, but it's consistent with existing use. If someone wants to change that, that can be independent of this issue. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-02-15 18:30:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> If we tried to lock that down it'd be counterproductive for the reason >> Andres mentions: sometimes you *want* to see what you get for other >> settings. > We could kinda address that by doing it in a separate file early in the > schedule, which could just be commented out when doing something like > this. But I'm still unconvinced it's worth caring. Actually, that idea might be worth pursuing. Right now pg_regress.c has a hard-wired notion that it should ALTER DATABASE SET certain parameters on the regression database. The best you can say for that is it's ugly as sin. It'd definitely be nicer if we could move that into someplace where it's more readily adjustable. Having done that, locking down most stuff by default might become more practical. However, I'm not sure that just dumping the responsibility into an initial test script is very workable. We'd need another copy for each contrib and PL test suite, the isolation tests, yadda yadda. And maintaining that many copies would be a nightmare. I think we'd need some way to have pg_regress pick up the desired settings from a central place. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
On 2017-02-15 18:30:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > If we tried to lock that down it'd be counterproductive for the reason > Andres mentions: sometimes you *want* to see what you get for other > settings. We could kinda address that by doing it in a separate file early in the schedule, which could just be commented out when doing something like this. But I'm still unconvinced it's worth caring. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-02-15 09:30:39 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote: >> I don't really see the cost here. > Because that means we essentially need to make sure that our tests pass > with a combination of about ~20-30 behaviour changing gucs, and ~5 > different compilation settings that change output. Yeah, the problem with addressing this non-systematically is that it'll never stay fixed for long. > Alternatively we could ALTER DATABASE a bunch of settings on the > regression database at the start, but I'm not sure that's nice either, > because it makes ad-hoc tests with unusual settings harder. I'd definitely be -1 on that. I think that it is worth fixing cases where a parameter change leads to surprising results, like the operator_precedence_warning case just now. But people should not be surprised when, say, changes in planner parameters lead to different EXPLAIN output or different row ordering. If we tried to lock that down it'd be counterproductive for the reason Andres mentions: sometimes you *want* to see what you get for other settings. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
Hi, On 2017-02-15 09:30:39 -0800, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > What's your reason to get this fixed? > > > > More testing is better than less testing, and a good way to get less > testing is requiring the tester to memorize a list of false positives they > might encounter. I'd like to systematically clone my production system, > run it through pg_upgrade, and then do installcheck (plus my own > app-specific) on the result, and I'd like others to do that as well with > their own production systems. > I don't really see the cost here. Because that means we essentially need to make sure that our tests pass with a combination of about ~20-30 behaviour changing gucs, and ~5 different compilation settings that change output. Either we do that systematically - which'd be a fair amount of effort - or we're not getting anywhere, because the setting around the next corner breaks a bunch of different tests. Should tests pass with random client_min_messages settings? Random enable_? Switched default_with_oids? statement_timeout? Could go on a long while. Having to think about all GUCs/compile time settings that could potentially affect a test and manually set everything up so they don't makes writing tests a lot harder, and we'll fail anyway unless it's checked in an automated fashion. Unless that testing is done you're not really benefiting, because you can't rely on test failures meaning much. If we want to have a list of GUCs that we want tests to pass under, then the proponents of that at least should bring up a buildfarm animal afterwards that test that reasonable combinations of those pass and continue to pass. Alternatively we could ALTER DATABASE a bunch of settings on the regression database at the start, but I'm not sure that's nice either, because it makes ad-hoc tests with unusual settings harder. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
Agreed with Jeff, false alarms should be avoided, whenever it is easy to put the avoiding mechanism in place. Regards, Neha
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On February 14, 2017 9:02:14 PM PST, neha khatri > wrote: > >On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:04 AM, neha khatri > > wrote:. > >> > >> > >>> Attached are two options for doing that. One overrides bytea_output > >>> locally where-ever needed, and the other overrides it for the entire > >>> 'regression' database. > >>> > >> > >> The solution that overrides bytea_output locally looks appropriate. > >It may > >> not be required to change the format for entire database. > >> Had there been a way to convert bytea_output from 'hex' to 'escape' > >> internally, that could have simplified this customization even more. > >> > > > >Well, the conversion from 'hex' to 'escape' is available using the > >function > >encode(). > >So the queries that are failing due to the setting bytea_output = > >escape, > >can be wrapped under encode(), to obtain the result in 'escape' format. > >Here is another way to resolve the same problem. The patch is attached. > > I don't quite see the point of this - there's a lot of settings that cause > spurious test failures. I don't see any point fixing random cases of that. > And I don't think the continual cost of doing so overall is worth the > minimal gain. > > What's your reason to get this fixed? > More testing is better than less testing, and a good way to get less testing is requiring the tester to memorize a list of false positives they might encounter. I'd like to systematically clone my production system, run it through pg_upgrade, and then do installcheck (plus my own app-specific) on the result, and I'd like others to do that as well with their own production systems. I don't really see the cost here. It took me longer to satisfy myself that this was not actually a real bug than it did to write the patch. Now much of that time was just because there were 3 other problems as well, which makes isolating and evaluating them exponentially harder--which itself is a good reason for fixing the ones that are easy to fix, so we don't have to get distracted by those while investigating the other ones. And if we go with the option 2 patch, it is one line which seems pretty self-documenting and easy to maintain. I'd rather light a candle than to curse the darkness, at least when the candle is this easy to light. Cheers, Jeff
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
Andres Freund writes: > I don't quite see the point of this - there's a lot of settings that cause > spurious test failures. I don't see any point fixing random cases of that. > And I don't think the continual cost of doing so overall is worth the minimal > gain. > What's your reason to get this fixed? FWIW, I'm inclined to do something about Jeff's nearby complaint about operator_precedence_warning, because the cause of that failure is pretty obscure. I'm less excited about this one, because it should be obvious what happened to anyone who looks at the regression diffs. In general I think there's value in "make installcheck" passing when it reasonably can, but you're quite right that there's a lot of setting changes that would break it, and not all are going to be practical to fix. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
On February 14, 2017 9:02:14 PM PST, neha khatri wrote: >On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:04 AM, neha khatri > wrote:. >> >> >>> Attached are two options for doing that. One overrides bytea_output >>> locally where-ever needed, and the other overrides it for the entire >>> 'regression' database. >>> >> >> The solution that overrides bytea_output locally looks appropriate. >It may >> not be required to change the format for entire database. >> Had there been a way to convert bytea_output from 'hex' to 'escape' >> internally, that could have simplified this customization even more. >> > >Well, the conversion from 'hex' to 'escape' is available using the >function >encode(). >So the queries that are failing due to the setting bytea_output = >escape, >can be wrapped under encode(), to obtain the result in 'escape' format. >Here is another way to resolve the same problem. The patch is attached. I don't quite see the point of this - there's a lot of settings that cause spurious test failures. I don't see any point fixing random cases of that. And I don't think the continual cost of doing so overall is worth the minimal gain. What's your reason to get this fixed? Andres -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:04 AM, neha khatri wrote:. > > >> Attached are two options for doing that. One overrides bytea_output >> locally where-ever needed, and the other overrides it for the entire >> 'regression' database. >> > > The solution that overrides bytea_output locally looks appropriate. It may > not be required to change the format for entire database. > Had there been a way to convert bytea_output from 'hex' to 'escape' > internally, that could have simplified this customization even more. > Well, the conversion from 'hex' to 'escape' is available using the function encode(). So the queries that are failing due to the setting bytea_output = escape, can be wrapped under encode(), to obtain the result in 'escape' format. Here is another way to resolve the same problem. The patch is attached. Regards, Neha intallcheck_bytea_output_escape.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > make installcheck currently fails against a server running > with bytea_output = escape. > > Making it succeed is fairly easy, and I think it is worth doing. > > Attached are two options for doing that. One overrides bytea_output > locally where-ever needed, and the other overrides it for the entire > 'regression' database. > The solution that overrides bytea_output locally looks appropriate. It may not be required to change the format for entire database. Had there been a way to convert bytea_output from 'hex' to 'escape' internally, that could have simplified this customisation even more. Regards, Neha Cheers, Neha On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Jeff Janes wrote: > make installcheck currently fails against a server running > with bytea_output = escape. > > Making it succeed is fairly easy, and I think it is worth doing. > > Attached are two options for doing that. One overrides bytea_output > locally where-ever needed, and the other overrides it for the entire > 'regression' database. > > Cheers, > > Jeff > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > >
[HACKERS] bytea_output vs make installcheck
make installcheck currently fails against a server running with bytea_output = escape. Making it succeed is fairly easy, and I think it is worth doing. Attached are two options for doing that. One overrides bytea_output locally where-ever needed, and the other overrides it for the entire 'regression' database. Cheers, Jeff installcheck_bytea_fix_2.patch Description: Binary data installcheck_bytea_fix_1.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
