| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: isolation check takes a long time |
| Date: | 2012-07-20 17:51:29 |
| Message-ID: | 50099AA1.5020705@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07/20/2012 01:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of vie jul 20 13:15:12 -0400 2012:
>> On 07/19/2012 09:54 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, I would like to remove the prepared_transactions test from
>>> the main isolation schedule, and add a new Make target which runs that
>>> test explicitly. Is there any objection to that?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Here's the patch for that.
> Looks reasonable. I'd like to have an "include" directive in regress
> files so that we don't have to repeat the whole set in the second file,
> but please don't let that wishlist item to stop you from committing this
> patch.
>
> Are you planning to have one of your animals run the prepared xacts
> schedule? :-)
>
Possibly - I'm tossing up in my mind the best way to do that. (Hacking
the script on a particular client would be the wrong way.)
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-20 17:52:20 | Re: Restrict ALTER FUNCTION CALLED ON NULL INPUT (was Re: Not quite a security hole: CREATE LANGUAGE for non-superusers) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-07-20 17:39:34 | Re: isolation check takes a long time |