Re: Add an optional timeout clause to isolationtester step.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add an optional timeout clause to isolationtester step.
Date: 2020-03-13 16:58:25
Message-ID: 30450.1584118705@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> It seems that for all the possibly interesting cases, what we want to wait on
> is an heavyweight lock, which is already what isolationtester detects. Maybe
> we could simply implement something like

> step "<name>" [ WAIT UNTIL BLOCKED ] { <SQL> }

> without any change to the blocking detection function?

Um, isn't that the existing built-in behavior?

I could actually imagine some uses for the reverse option, *don't* wait
for it to become blocked but just immediately continue with issuing
the next step.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-03-13 17:06:29 Re: range_agg
Previous Message Dean Rasheed 2020-03-13 16:54:51 Re: Additional improvements to extended statistics