Re: Regression tests vs SERIALIZABLE

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Regression tests vs SERIALIZABLE
Date: 2021-03-17 04:31:32
Message-ID: 3483411.1615955492@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 3:28 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Usually, if we issue a SET in the regression tests, we explicitly RESET
>> as soon thereafter as practical, so as to have a well-defined scope
>> where the script is running under unusual conditions.

> Oh, of course. Thanks.

> I was wrong to blame that commit, and there are many other tests that
> fail in the back branches. But since we were down to just one, I went
> ahead and fixed this in the master branch only.

Makes sense to me. Committed patch looks good.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2021-03-17 05:17:24 Re: Assertion failure with barriers in parallel hash join
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2021-03-17 04:30:30 Re: pl/pgsql feature request: shorthand for argument and local variable references