| From: | Thomas Munro <munro(at)ip9(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2014-07-28 21:48:19 |
| Message-ID: | CADLWmXWxuTLwRwXSiXzdeXyxXzTiC532pFUmVs8OuLp6XPE5Mw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 27 July 2014 23:19, Thomas Munro <munro(at)ip9(dot)org> wrote:
> On the subject of isolation tests, I think skip-locked.spec is only
> producing schedules that reach third of the three 'return
> HeapTupleWouldBlock' statements in heap_lock_tuple. I will follow up
> with some more thorough isolation tests in the next week or so to
> cover the other two, and some other scenarios and interactions with
> other feature.
Now with extra isolation tests so that the three different code
branches that can skip rows are covered. I temporarily added some
logging lines to double check that the expected branches are reached
by each permutation while developing the specs. They change the
output and are not part of the patch -- attaching separately.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| skip-locked-v11.patch | text/x-patch | 54.0 KB |
| debug-why-skipped.patch | text/x-patch | 963 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-07-28 23:18:23 | Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-07-28 20:41:53 | Re: Making joins involving ctid work for the benefit of UPSERT |