From: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Test suite fails on non-default configuration |
Date: | 2011-04-19 01:29:50 |
Message-ID: | alpine.BSO.2.00.1104182127510.27592@leary.csoft.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> // PostgreSQL defaults to READ COMMITTED
>> assertEquals(Connection.TRANSACTION_READ_COMMITTED,
>> con.getTransactionIsolation());
>
>> Should the unit tests really be failing based on configuration
>> options?
>
> Well, for a comparison point, you can certainly make the server's
> regression tests fail too if you whack the configuration around enough.
> I agree that the above seems perhaps overly fragile, but I don't think
> you can expect to have a general principle that the JDBC tests should
> pass regardless of configuration. It's more a question of how painful
> is it to support any particular nondefault configuration choice, and
> does it seem worth it based on real-world usage of the choice.
>
Exactly. In this case the tests were assuming too much for no real
purpose. I've checked in a fix to work with any default isolation level.
Kris Jurka
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2011-04-19 03:05:26 | New 9.1dev driver release |
Previous Message | Kris Jurka | 2011-04-19 01:20:30 | Re: [JDBC] JDBC connections to 9.1 |