| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Regression tests vs SERIALIZABLE |
| Date: | 2021-03-15 14:28:26 |
| Message-ID: | 2995972.1615818506@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 5:24 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> However, since commit 862ef372d6b, there *is* one test that fails if
>> you run make installcheck against a cluster running with -c
>> default_transaction_isolation=serializable: transaction.sql. Is that
>> a mistake? Is it a goal to be able to run this test suite against all
>> 3 isolation levels?
> Here's a fix.
Usually, if we issue a SET in the regression tests, we explicitly RESET
as soon thereafter as practical, so as to have a well-defined scope
where the script is running under unusual conditions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Paul Guo | 2021-03-15 14:30:13 | Re: fdatasync performance problem with large number of DB files |
| Previous Message | David Steele | 2021-03-15 14:24:53 | Re: 2019-03 CF now in progress |