From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: rules regression test fix |
Date: | 2002-08-27 22:03:22 |
Message-ID: | 3D6BF72A.8090509@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> This would *not* catch problems created by transient states within a
> test. For example, if some test running parallel with the rules test
> were to create a temp table and put a rule on the temp table, then the
> rules test's display of all rules might show that rule when run in
> parallel ... but there's no bug in either sequential order.
>
> I think it'd be worth trying the cross-check sketched above, if anyone
> has the patience, but beyond that I'm not sure how we might rule out
> problems.
>
> But in reality, if there were such problems I'd be inclined to think
> we'd have heard about them before now.
>
I've seen this kind of problem before, but not often enough to bother
me. I was actually thinking that each parallel test should use its own
schema.
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-27 22:08:40 | Re: Proposed GUC Variable |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-08-27 21:55:33 | Re: warning fix |