Re: FOR KEY LOCK foreign keys

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 06:30:41PM +0200, Jesper Krogh wrote:
> I hope this hasn't been forgotten. But I cant see it has been committed
> or moved
> into the commitfest process?

If you're asking about that main patch for $SUBJECT rather than those
isolationtester changes specifically, I can't speak to the plans for it. I
wasn't planning to move the test suite work forward independent of the core
patch it serves, but we could do that if there's another application.

Thanks,
nm

> On 2011-03-11 16:51, Noah Misch wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 02:13:22AM -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> Automated tests would go a long way toward building confidence that this patch
>>> does the right thing. Thanks to the SSI patch, we now have an in-tree test
>>> framework for testing interleaved transactions. The only thing it needs to be
>>> suitable for this work is a way to handle blocked commands. If you like, I can
>>> try to whip something up for that.
>> [off-list ACK followed]
>>
>> Here's a patch implementing that. It applies to master, with or without your
>> KEY LOCK patch also applied, though the expected outputs reflect the
>> improvements from your patch. I add three isolation test specs:
>>
>> fk-contention: blocking-only test case from your blog post
>> fk-deadlock: the deadlocking test case I used during patch review
>> fk-deadlock2: Joel Jacobson's deadlocking test case