Re: Improving isolationtester's data output

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)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Improving isolationtester's data output
Date: 2021-06-17 01:10:25
Message-ID: 923890.1623892225@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:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 03:33:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> After checking cross-version diffs to see how painful that is likely
>> to be, I'm inclined to also back-patch Michael's v13 commits
>> 989d23b04beac0c26f44c379b04ac781eaa4265e
>> Detect unused steps in isolation specs and do some cleanup
>> 9903338b5ea59093d77cfe50ec0b1c22d4a7d843
>> Remove dry-run mode from isolationtester

> There may be tests in stable branches that define steps remaining
> unused, but that's a minimal risk.

Yeah, it only results in a message in the output file anyway.

> Down to which version do you need
> these? All the way down to 9.6?

Yes please.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2021-06-17 01:12:04 Re: Different compression methods for FPI
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2021-06-17 01:07:38 Re: A qsort template