From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps |
Date: | 2019-08-20 05:17:36 |
Message-ID: | 20190820051736.GD1841@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:34:45AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I created the dry-run mode to be able to easily generate the set of
> possible permutations for a new test, then edit the result and put it
> back in the spec file; but after the deadlock tests were added (with
> necessary hacking of the lock-detection in isolationtester) that manner
> of operation became almost completely useless. Maybe we need to rethink
> what facilities isolationtester offers -- possibly making dry-run have a
> completely different behavior than currently, which I doubt anybody is
> using.
I am not sure exactly how it could be redesigned, and with n!
permutations that easily leads to bloat of the generated output. I
think that --dry-run (well -n) is a bit misleading as option name
though as it prints only permutations. Still, keeping it around has
no real cost, so it is not a big deal.
(Looking at the gpdb code, it does not seem to be used.)
> All that being said, I have no objections to this patch (but I didn't
> review it closely).
Thanks.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-08-20 05:23:03 | Re: Fixing typos and inconsistencies |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-08-20 04:34:45 | Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps |