| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps |
| Date: | 2019-08-22 02:53:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20190822025335.GC1683@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:07:19AM -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> So, I think I completely misunderstood the purpose of 'dry-run'. If no
> one is using it, having a check for unused steps in dry-run may not be
> useful.
Okay. After sleeping on it and seeing how this thread evolves, it
looks that we have more arguments in favor of just let dry-run go to
the void. So attached is an updated patch set:
- 0001 removes the dry-run mode from isolationtester.
- 0002 cleans up the specs of unused steps and adds the discussed
sanity checks, as proposed for this thread.
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-Remove-dry-run-mode-from-isolationtester.patch | text/x-diff | 2.1 KB |
| v3-0002-Improve-detection-of-unused-steps-in-isolation-sp.patch | text/x-diff | 7.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2019-08-22 03:02:01 | Re: [proposal] de-TOAST'ing using a iterator |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2019-08-22 02:40:30 | Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large? |