| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Wrong return code in vacuumdb when multiple jobs are used |
| Date: | 2019-05-04 09:22:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_b7VjpA4CHAUUng9w26iNd3TnHMjznuKfVqwC9C5uYN0A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 11:15 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure
> > that a TAP test is required here, so I didn't add one. I'll be happy
> > to do so though if needed.
>
> You could make that reliable by getting a lock on a table using a
> two-phase transaction, and your test case from upthread won't fly high
> as we have no facility in PostgresNode.pm to keep around a session's
> state using psql. FWIW, I am not convinced that it is a case worth
> bothering, so no tests is fine.
Yes, adding a test for this case looked like requiring a lot of
creativity using TAP infrastructure, that's the main reason why I
didn't add one. 2PC is a good idea though.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-05-04 09:25:13 | Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-05-04 09:15:04 | Re: Wrong return code in vacuumdb when multiple jobs are used |