From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | John Gray <jgray(at)azuli(dot)co(dot)uk>, Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Visibility regression test |
Date: | 2002-08-29 17:03:18 |
Message-ID: | 3D6E53D6.1060408@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Your sketch misses an important point: we want to know not only what
> each backend does, but when it does it. (For example, we'd want the
> test harness to be able to check that LOCK actually prevents another
> backend from making progress.) A brute-force way to do that would be
> to delay for some amount of time between issuing commands, so that we
> can be sure the backends have reached a quiescent state. Then, logging
> all the commands and responses serially into a single file would provide
> some idea of causal order. It could still be tricky though, eg if an
> unlock releases two other backends then their results could arrive in
> either order.
You could actually serialize all of the commands from one backend,
against multiple backends, using dblink.
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomoyuki Niijima | 2002-08-29 17:06:56 | failed to build libpq.so on AIX 4 and 5/I have a solution |
Previous Message | Tomoyuki Niijima | 2002-08-29 16:43:58 | make check hang on AIX 5L p690 4way/I have two solutions |