Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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