| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Improving isolationtester's data output |
| Date: | 2021-06-16 01:31:15 |
| Message-ID: | 20210616013115.2otscs7rwictsolv@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-06-15 19:26:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Going forward it wouldn't be a problem, but back-patching isolation
> test cases might find it annoying. On the other hand, my nearby
> patch to improve isolation test stability is already going to create
> issues of that sort. (Unless, dare I say it, we back-patch that.)
It might be worth to back-patch - aren't there some back branch cases of
test instability? And perhaps more importantly, I'm sure we'll encounter
cases of writing new isolation tests in the course of fixing bugs that
we'd want to backpatch that are hard to make reliable without the new
features?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-06-16 01:32:01 | Re: snapshot too old issues, first around wraparound and then more. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-16 01:22:51 | Re: Improving the isolationtester: fewer failures, less delay |