Re: Improving isolationtester's data output

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 03:01:31
Message-ID: YMq7C/QFn75Lii57@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 09:10:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, it only results in a message in the output file anyway.

That itself would blow up the buildfarm, as 06fdc4e has proved.

> Yes please.

Nobody has complained about the removal of --dry-run with 13~. The
second one would cause tests to fail after a minor upgrade for
extensions using isolationtester, but it seems like a good thing to
inform people about anyway. So, okay, both parts are done.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com 2021-06-17 03:11:27 RE: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep
Previous Message Zhihong Yu 2021-06-17 02:23:12 Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements