Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:45 PM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:16 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2019-Aug-21, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>>
>> > In Greenplum, we mainly add new tests to a separate isolation
>> > framework (called isolation2) which uses a completely different
>> > syntax. It doesn't use isolationtester at all. So, I haven't had a use
>> > case to add long options to isolationtester yet :)
>>
>> Is that other framework somehow more capable?
>
>
> So, there is some historical context as to why it is a separate test suite.
> And some of the differences are specific to Greenplum -- e.g. needing to connect
> to a specific database in "utility mode" to do something.
>
> However, the other differences are actually pretty handy and would be applicable
> to upstream as well.
> We use a different syntax than the isolation framework and have some nice
> features. Most notably, explicit control over blocking.

Asim submitted this framework just yesterday:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANXE4TdxdESX1jKw48xet-5GvBFVSq=4cgNeioTQff372KO45A@mail.gmail.com

-- Rob

>
> The syntax for what would be a "step" in isolation is like this:
>
> [<#>[flag]:] <sql> | ! <shell scripts or command>
>
> where # is the session number and flags include the following:
>
> &: expect blocking behavior
> >: running in background without blocking
> <: join an existing session
> q: quit the given session
>
> See the script [1] for parsing the test cases for more details on the syntax and
> capabilities (it is in Python).
>
> [1] https://github.com/greenplum-db/gpdb/blob/master/src/test/isolation2/sql_isolation_testcase.py
>
> --
> Melanie Plageman