| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Oskari Saarenmaa <os(at)aiven(dot)io>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Tripp <peter(at)chartio(dot)com>, Virendra Negi <virendra(at)idyllic-software(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple |
| Date: | 2016-08-18 20:38:39 |
| Message-ID: | 24166.1471552719@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2016-08-17 21:45:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> guaibasaurus thinks this test is still underdetermined.
> The easiest solution here seems to be another expected file - playing
> around a few minutes, I couldn't see an easier solution. Better ideas?
If you think the two outcomes are equally valid, sure.
You could possibly try to force a single ordering by inserting a sleep
into some step of the test --- we have some other isolation tests that
do it that way. But it's hard to predict how much sleep is enough.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-08-18 20:43:42 | Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-08-18 19:46:39 | Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple |