Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rkuH8-00GJcO-Md for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:14:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rkuH6-0049AQ-Sh for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:14:13 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rkuH6-0049AI-J4 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:14:13 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1rkuGz-004YVP-Jb for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:14:11 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 42ENDrCM2393553; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:13:53 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Michael Paquier cc: Heikki Linnakangas , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: Weird test mixup In-reply-to: References: <10fd6cdd-c5d9-46fe-9fa1-7e661191309e@iki.fi> <2387221.1710454778@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier message dated "Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:53:57 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2393551.1710458033.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:13:53 -0400 Message-ID: <2393552.1710458033@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Michael Paquier writes: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 06:19:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I wonder if it'd be wise to adjust the injection point stuff so that >> it's active in only the specific database the injection point was >> activated in. > It can be made optional by extending InjectionPointAttach() to > specify a database OID or a database name. Note that > 041_checkpoint_at_promote.pl wants an injection point to run in the > checkpointer, where we don't have a database requirement. > Or we could just disable runningcheck because of the concurrency > requirement in this test. The test would still be able to run, just > less times. No, actually we *must* mark all these tests NO_INSTALLCHECK if we stick with the current definition of injection points. The point of installcheck mode is that the tests are supposed to be safe to run in a live installation. Side-effects occurring in other databases are completely not OK. I can see that some tests would want to be able to inject code cluster-wide, but I bet that's going to be a small minority. I suggest that we invent a notion of "global" vs "local" injection points, where a "local" one only fires in the DB it was defined in. Then only tests that require a global injection point need to be NO_INSTALLCHECK. regards, tom lane