| From: | Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Read Uncommitted regression test coverage |
| Date: | 2019-12-18 22:05:11 |
| Message-ID: | 0e3b0990-f893-e853-1f7e-98a14d872122@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Over in [1], I became concerned that, although postgres supports
Read Uncommitted transaction isolation (by way of Read Committed
mode), there was very little test coverage for it:
On 12/18/19 10:46 AM, Mark Dilger wrote:
> Looking at the regression tests, I'm surprised read uncommitted gets
> so little test coverage. There's a test in src/test/isolation but
> nothing at all in src/test/regression covering this isolation level.
>
> The one in src/test/isolation doesn't look very comprehensive. I'd
> at least expect a test that verifies you don't get a syntax error
> when you request READ UNCOMMITTED isolation from SQL.
The attached patch set adds a modicum of test coverage for this.
Do others feel these tests are worth the small run time overhead
they add?
--
Mark Dilger
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-regress.patch | text/x-patch | 2.4 KB |
| 0002-isolation.patch | text/x-patch | 4.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-12-18 22:13:26 | remove unnecessary table_open/close from makeArrayTypeName |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-12-18 21:24:50 | Re: Read Uncommitted |