| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Oskari Saarenmaa <os(at)aiven(dot)io>, 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 <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple |
| Date: | 2016-08-18 21:09:27 |
| Message-ID: | 25328.1471554567@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> 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 ...
> There is an argument to be made for fixing isolationtester to
> accommodate this kind of thing.
The existing accommodation is support for multiple expected-files.
Do you have a better idea? We can't just let it accept different
response orders as valid in all cases, because often they wouldn't be.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-08-19 00:37:26 | Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-08-18 20:57:42 | Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple |