From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps |
Date: | 2019-08-23 01:53:16 |
Message-ID: | 20190823015316.GC2328@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:20:48AM -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> So, there is some historical context as to why it is a separate test suite.
> And some of the differences are specific to Greenplum -- e.g. needing to
> connect to a specific database in "utility mode" to do something.
What is "utility mode"?
> The syntax for what would be a "step" in isolation is like this:
>
> [<#>[flag]:] <sql> | ! <shell scripts or command>
>
> where # is the session number and flags include the following:
>
> &: expect blocking behavior
> >: running in background without blocking
> <: join an existing session
> q: quit the given session
These could be transposed as new meta commands for the existing
specs? Of course not as "step" per-se, but new dedicated commands?
> See the script [1] for parsing the test cases for more details on the
> syntax and capabilities (it is in Python).
Hmm. The bar to add a new hard language dependency in the test
suites is very high. I am not sure that we'd want something with a
python dependency for the tests, also knowing how Python likes
breaking compatibility (isolation2_main() also mentions a dependency
to Python).
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2019-08-23 02:09:44 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks |
Previous Message | Ashwin Agrawal | 2019-08-22 22:05:08 | Re: Comment in ginpostinglist.c doesn't match code |