From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Timing-sensitive case in src/test/recovery TAP tests |
Date: | 2017-08-09 13:39:04 |
Message-ID: | 22438.1502285944@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> I got the same thought, wondering as well if get_slot_xmins should be
>>> renamed check_slot_xmins with the is() tests moved inside it as well.
>>> Not sure if that's worth the API ugliness though.
>> Mmm, doesn't seem like that's worth doing, but I'm half tempted to merge
>> wait_slot_xmins into get_slot_xmins so you can't skip it ...
> Let's do that please. Merging both was my first feeling when
> refactoring this test upthread. Should I send a patch?
Sure, have at it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-08-09 13:39:21 | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-09 13:35:15 | Re: Parallel Append implementation |