Re: pgsql: Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve effici

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Reorder EPQ work, to fix rowmark related bugs and improve effici
Date: 2019-09-10 15:39:46
Message-ID: 22458.1568129986@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-09-09 22:13:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> As well as a28e10e82e54, I suppose. I agree with keeping the tool
>>> similar across branches, if we're going to do this.

>> Hm, good point. My first thought was that a28e10e82e54 is just
>> cosmetic, but it isn't entirely, because it suppresses notice
>> reports on the control connection. That means it might actually
>> be a prerequisite to having stable output with ebd499282 (the
>> change of client_min_messages).
>>
>> After reviewing the git log a little more, I'm inclined to think
>> we should only back-patch this stuff to 9.6, which is where 38f8bdcac
>> ("Modify the isolation tester so that multiple sessions can wait")
>> and a number of follow-up patches came in. That was enough of a
>> quantum jump in flexibility that it'd likely limit our ability to
>> back-patch tests further than that anyway. Also I don't think the
>> patches mentioned here would apply without that ...

> That seems like a good plan to me.

Hearing no votes against, I'll go make it so.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-09-10 16:05:06 pgsql: Don't drop NOTICE messages in isolation tests.
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-09-10 15:26:07 pgsql: Restructure libpq code to remove some duplicity