| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: random isolation test failures |
| Date: | 2011-09-27 04:11:39 |
| Message-ID: | 13956.1317096699@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I just tweaked isolationtester so that it collects the error messages
> and displays them all together at the end of the test. After seeing it
> run, I didn't like it -- I think I prefer something more local, so that
> in the only case where we call try_complete_step twice in the loop, we
> report any errors in either. AFAICS this would make both expected cases
> behave identically in test output.
Hmm, is that really an appropriate fix? I'm worried that it might mask
event-ordering differences that actually are significant.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-09-27 05:00:14 | Re: bug of recovery? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-09-27 04:05:44 | Re: bug of recovery? |