Re: Weird test mixup

On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 04:39:00PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:

Thanks for the feedback.

> The return-bool approach sounds fine.  Up to you whether to do in this patch,
> else I'll do it when I add the test.

I see no reason to not change the signature of the routine now if we
know that we're going to do it anyway in the future.  I was shortly
wondering if doing the same for InjectionpointAttach() would make
sense, but it has more error states, so I'm not really tempted without
an actual reason (cannot think of a case where I'd want to put more
control into a module after a failed attach).

>> It could
>> always be possible that a concurrent backend does a detach followed by
>> an attach with the same name, causing the shmem exit callback to drop
>> a point it should not, but that's not really a plausible case IMO :)
>
> Agreed.  It's reasonable to expect test cases to serialize backend exits,
> attach calls, and detach calls.  If we need to fix that later, we can use
> attachment serial numbers.

Okay by me.

> I'd name this INJ_CONDITION_UNCONDITIONAL or INJ_CONDITION_ALWAYS.  INVALID
> sounds like a can't-happen event or an injection point that never runs.
> Otherwise, the patch looks good and makes src/test/modules/gin safe for
> installcheck.  Thanks.

INJ_CONDITION_ALWAYS sounds like a good compromise here.

Attached is an updated patch for now, indented with a happy CI.  I am
still planning to look at that a second time on Monday with a fresher
mind, in case I'm missing something now.
--
Michael