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

Re: random isolation test failures

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: random isolation test failures
Date: 2011-09-27 04:11:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I just tweaked isolationtester so that it collects the error messages
> and displays them all together at the end of the test.  After seeing it
> run, I didn't like it -- I think I prefer something more local, so that
> in the only case where we call try_complete_step twice in the loop, we
> report any errors in either.  AFAICS this would make both expected cases
> behave identically in test output.

Hmm, is that really an appropriate fix?  I'm worried that it might mask
event-ordering differences that actually are significant.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2011-09-27 05:00:14
Subject: Re: bug of recovery?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-09-27 04:05:44
Subject: Re: bug of recovery?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group