Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2024-Mar-28, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If the test fails both when the machine is too slow and when it's
>> too fast, then there's zero hope of making it stable and we should
>> just remove it.

> It doesn't fail when it's too fast -- it's just that it doesn't cover
> the case we want to cover.

That's hardly better, because then you think you have test
coverage but maybe you don't.

Could we make this test bulletproof by using an injection point?
If not, I remain of the opinion that we're better off without it.

            regards, tom lane