| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Build farm coverage for isolation tests |
| Date: | 2011-04-20 14:02:18 |
| Message-ID: | 4DAEE76A.2090801@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/20/2011 09:54 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
> http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=crake&dt=2011-04-20%2010%3A17%3A02&stg=isolation-check
>
> On a cursory scan, that looks like a successful run of the right
> test suite. Was there anything in particular I should be checking
> there?
Not that I know of. I just gave you the URL a) to show it's actually
being done and b) to show you what the output would be like.
>
>> I'll include this in the upcoming release of the buildfarm client.
>
> Thanks!
>
> This will only be attempted for 9.1 or higher, right?
>
>
Yes, The code checks for the existence of the isolation directory and
only runs the step if it exists.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-20 14:02:30 | Re: REINDEX vs broken HOT chains, redux |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2011-04-20 14:00:12 | Re: pgbench \for or similar loop |