| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: prepared transaction isolation tests |
| Date: | 2020-08-19 13:38:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20200819133813.GB19121@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 07:34:00PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> It seems like the buildfarm ought to configure the started server with a
> bunch of prepared transactions, in that case? At least going forward?
Agreed. Testing with max_prepared_transactions > 0 has much more
value than not, for sure. So I think that it could be a good thing,
particularly if we begin to add more isolation tests.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2020-08-19 13:38:55 | Re: prepared transaction isolation tests |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-08-19 06:35:49 | pgsql: Add pg_backend_memory_contexts system view. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2020-08-19 13:38:55 | Re: prepared transaction isolation tests |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2020-08-19 13:29:20 | Re: Print logical WAL message content |