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>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps
Date: 2019-08-23 01:53:16
Message-ID: 20190823015316.GC2328@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:20:48AM -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> So, there is some historical context as to why it is a separate test suite.
> And some of the differences are specific to Greenplum -- e.g. needing to
> connect to a specific database in "utility mode" to do something.

What is "utility mode"?

> The syntax for what would be a "step" in isolation is like this:
>
> [<#>[flag]:] <sql> | ! <shell scripts or command>
>
> where # is the session number and flags include the following:
>
> &: expect blocking behavior
> >: running in background without blocking
> <: join an existing session
> q: quit the given session

These could be transposed as new meta commands for the existing
specs? Of course not as "step" per-se, but new dedicated commands?

> See the script [1] for parsing the test cases for more details on the
> syntax and capabilities (it is in Python).

Hmm. The bar to add a new hard language dependency in the test
suites is very high. I am not sure that we'd want something with a
python dependency for the tests, also knowing how Python likes
breaking compatibility (isolation2_main() also mentions a dependency
to Python).
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2019-08-23 02:09:44 Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] pageinspect function to decode infomasks
Previous Message Ashwin Agrawal 2019-08-22 22:05:08 Re: Comment in ginpostinglist.c doesn't match code