From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: isolationtester seems uselessly rigid as to length of permutation |
Date: | 2012-01-28 22:52:07 |
Message-ID: | 1327791049-sup-1827@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of sáb ene 28 18:08:36 -0300 2012:
> I thought it'd be a good idea to put in some basic test cases for the
> EvalPlanQual code using the isolationtester infrastructure. While
> fooling with it, I soon ran into this restriction:
>
> if (p->nsteps != nallsteps)
> {
> fprintf(stderr, "invalid number of steps in permutation %d\n", i + 1);
> exit_nicely();
> }
>
> ie, a "permutation" list has to specify exactly as many steps as there
> are in the spec file. This seems to me to be a useless restriction,
> because it prevents running a test sequence that repeats some steps or
> leaves other steps out. Barring objections, I'm going to remove the
> above lines.
Yes, sorry, that patch was a mistake (misdiagnosed problem, later
patched differently). My FOR KEY SHARE patch deals with that too, but
I'm happy with just removing the test.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Urbański | 2012-01-28 23:00:38 | unfriendly error when accessing NEW in statement-level trigger |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2012-01-28 21:25:06 | Re: Second thoughts on CheckIndexCompatible() vs. operator families |