Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Visibility regression test

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 17:21:48
Message-ID: hkksmukmgegpsod3lklq33tfcvj0ekjp6f@4ax.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:37:39 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
wrote:
>>> Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> writes:
>> A new regression test trying to detect runaway INSERTs/UPDATEs.
>
>If there is such a problem it will surely be found by the other
>regression tests.

That's what I hoped when I sent my heap tuple header patches.
Actually this test catches a bug, which was in CVS from 2002-07-02
until 2002-07-30 and was not discovered during this time.  You have to
know, that I am a lazy person :-)  I wouldn't have written this test,
if the bug was found by one of the other tests.

>  I don't see a need to insert a test that has an
>acknowledged system dependency in order to detect this.

You mean, that the test might fail on a system that takes more than
ten seconds to INSERT or UPDATE a single row?  I don't think this is a
real problem.  Should we change the timeout to 30 seconds?  60?  3600?

Servus
 Manfred

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-08-29 17:22:43
Subject: Re: Visibility regression test
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-08-29 17:18:14
Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group