Re: recovery testing for beta

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:39:56AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I've applied my partial-write testing harness to several scenarios in 9.4.
>  So far its found a recovery bug for gin indexes, a recovery bug for btree,
> a vacuum bug for btree indexes (with foreign keys, but that is not relevant
> to the bug), and nothing of interest for gist index, although it only
> tested "where text_array @@ to_tsquery(?)" queries.
> 
> It also implicitly tested the xlog parallel write slots thing, as that is
> common code to all recovery.
> 
> I also applied the foreign key test retroactively to 9.3, and it quickly
> re-found the multixact bugs up until commit 9a57858f1103b89a5674.  The test
> was designed only with the knowledge that the bugs involved foreign keys
> and the consumption of multixacts.   I had no deeper knowledge of the
> details of those bugs when designing the test, so I have a reasonable
> amount of confidence that this could have found them in real time had I
> bothered to try to test the feature during the previous beta cycle.

Impressive.  This testing is of great value to the project.

-- 
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB                                 http://www.enterprisedb.com