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: | 2021-03-17 04:31:32 |
Message-ID: | 3483411.1615955492@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 Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 3:28 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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.
> Oh, of course. Thanks.
> I was wrong to blame that commit, and there are many other tests that
> fail in the back branches. But since we were down to just one, I went
> ahead and fixed this in the master branch only.
Makes sense to me. Committed patch looks good.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-03-17 05:17:24 | Re: Assertion failure with barriers in parallel hash join |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2021-03-17 04:30:30 | Re: pl/pgsql feature request: shorthand for argument and local variable references |