From: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Visibility regression test |
Date: | 2002-08-29 17:47:47 |
Message-ID: | tqmsmu08ddqhp94qm823oo2f9h3rg4g6cd@4ax.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:27:36 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
wrote:
>I don't like depending on a timeout *at all* in a regression test;
>the exact value of the timeout is not particularly relevant to my
>concern about it.
I agree. But a timeout was the only thing that came to my mind for
aborting an endless loop. Better suggestions are welcome. Waiting
for the disk to get full will not be accepted :-)
>It surprises me quite a bit that there aren't any existing spots in
>the regression tests that would expose a Halloween problem ...
Me too. BTW, why is this called the "Halloween problem"?
> I guess
>my other concern is that we shouldn't need a whole new test for this.
Again I agree. First I wanted to insert these few lines into an
existing test, but didn't find one, where it seemed to fit. The most
suitable one seemed to be vacuum.
Servus
Manfred
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-29 18:33:54 | Re: [GENERAL] worried about PGPASSWORD drop |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-29 17:27:36 | Re: Visibility regression test |