Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again
Date: 2009-04-22 18:48:58
Message-ID: 8682.1240426138@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> That only works for make check, not make installcheck.

> Configuration affects what can be tested in installcheck, that's quite
> natural. I would be happy with simply adding an alternative expected
> output file for min_prepared_xacts=0 case. Like we've done for xml test
> cases, for example, though that's a compile-time option.

Hmm, that's true; the xml case is a relevant precedent. This would be
a pretty low-effort way of addressing the problem. Another nice thing
about it is that we'd stop having a default max_prepared_transactions
value that's completely useless (5 is guaranteed to be either too much
or not enough...)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-04-22 18:53:09 Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2009-04-22 18:43:07 Re: Prepared transactions vs novice DBAs, again