From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Oskari Saarenmaa <os(at)aiven(dot)io>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Tripp <peter(at)chartio(dot)com>, Virendra Negi <virendra(at)idyllic-software(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple |
Date: | 2016-08-18 20:43:42 |
Message-ID: | 20160818204342.ktav5k7tenerom4v@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2016-08-18 16:38:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2016-08-17 21:45:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> guaibasaurus thinks this test is still underdetermined.
>
> > The easiest solution here seems to be another expected file - playing
> > around a few minutes, I couldn't see an easier solution. Better ideas?
>
> If you think the two outcomes are equally valid, sure.
Both are valid, yes. Will do that.
> You could possibly try to force a single ordering by inserting a sleep
> into some step of the test --- we have some other isolation tests that
> do it that way. But it's hard to predict how much sleep is enough.
I don't think it's applicable here - s2/3 are woken up by the same lock
release. The order in which the OS lets them run primarily determines
the result visibility. A sleep wouldn't hide the difference in output
order afaics. I guess we could hide the combined steps (insert & sleep)
in a function, but ...
Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-08-18 20:57:42 | Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-08-18 20:38:39 | Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple |