Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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.

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

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?