| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <munro(at)ip9(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SKIP LOCKED DATA (work in progress) |
| Date: | 2014-08-01 09:28:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvr=q+7zyMPdEhnN8yu+BBQQa0jw5STrpfvu6ijkXv86dQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
> David Rowley wrote:
>
> > I've also been looking at the isolation tests and I see that you've
> added a
> > series of tests for NOWAIT. I was wondering why you did that as that's
> > really existing code, probably if you thought the tests were a bit thin
> > around NOWAIT then maybe that should be a separate patch?
>
> The isolation tester is new so we don't have nearly enough tests for it.
> Adding more meaningful tests is good even if they're unrelated to the
> patch at hand.
>
>
I completely agree that some more isolation tests coverage would be a good
thing. I just saw it as something not directly related to this feature, so
thought it would be better as a separate patch. From my experience with the
project, normally when I try to sneak something extra in, it either does
not make the final commit, or gets added in a separate commit.
Regards
David Rowley
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2014-08-01 09:37:24 | Re: SKIP LOCKED DATA (work in progress) |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2014-08-01 09:18:37 | Re: Introducing coarse grain parallelism by postgres_fdw. |