Re: 2ba3bbb2463: Updated misc_session_status.test to not fail if select does not fail
Hi, Monty, On Dec 22, Michael Widenius wrote:
revision-id: 2ba3bbb2463 (mariadb-10.6.20-61-g2ba3bbb2463) parent(s): dfc1632da73 author: Michael Widenius committer: Michael Widenius timestamp: 2024-12-17 10:45:25 +0200 message:
Updated misc_session_status.test to not fail if select does not fail
The test with memory restrictions randomly works or fails depending on server configurations. As the test was there to just check if the server crashes when run with small memory configurations, I disabled testing if the query would fail or not. The test still has its original purpose.
This is very questionable. The test would still serve its original purpose indeed if it'll hit OOM at least somewhere. But with your change it's not clear that it'll ever do. The query might as well succeed everywhere and we'll never know. Or it might start succeeding in the future. That is, technically you are right, the test still does its job (presuming you've verified that it hits OOM at least on some builders). But your change basically guarantees that it'll become meaningless in the future. Regards, Sergei Chief Architect, MariaDB Server and security@mariadb.org
Hi! On Sun, Dec 22, 2024 at 6:02 PM Sergei Golubchik <serg@mariadb.org> wrote:
Hi, Monty,
On Dec 22, Michael Widenius wrote:
revision-id: 2ba3bbb2463 (mariadb-10.6.20-61-g2ba3bbb2463) parent(s): dfc1632da73 author: Michael Widenius committer: Michael Widenius timestamp: 2024-12-17 10:45:25 +0200 message:
Updated misc_session_status.test to not fail if select does not fail
The test with memory restrictions randomly works or fails depending on server configurations. As the test was there to just check if the server crashes when run with small memory configurations, I disabled testing if the query would fail or not. The test still has its original purpose.
This is very questionable. The test would still serve its original purpose indeed if it'll hit OOM at least somewhere. But with your change it's not clear that it'll ever do. The query might as well succeed everywhere and we'll never know. Or it might start succeeding in the future.
That is, technically you are right, the test still does its job (presuming you've verified that it hits OOM at least on some builders). But your change basically guarantees that it'll become meaningless in the future.
I get the error failure on my machine. It did not fail on some of the machines on buildbot. This means that the test still serves it original purpose. I assume one could change the test to do joins with several performance schema tables to increase memory usage. However I don't think that is necessary as we know the memory constraints still holds on some machines. Regards, Monty
participants (2)
-
Michael Widenius -
Sergei Golubchik