Re: Add an optional timeout clause to isolationtester step.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add an optional timeout clause to isolationtester step.
Date: 2020-03-12 13:48:03
Message-ID: 8616.1584020883@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> +1. A patch does not seem to be that complicated. Now isn't it too
> late for v13?

I think we've generally given new tests more slack than new features so
far as schedule goes. If the patch ends up being complicated/invasive,
I might vote to hold it for v14, but let's see it first.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Julien Rouhaud 2020-03-12 14:00:26 Re: Collation versioning
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-03-12 13:43:54 Re: Refactor compile-time assertion checks for C/C++