Re: Improving the isolationtester: fewer failures, less delay

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Improving the isolationtester: fewer failures, less delay
Date: 2021-06-15 19:14:24
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2021-06-14 22:57:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is still WIP to some extent, as I've not spent much time looking at
>> specfiles other than the ones with big delays; there may be additional
>> improvements possible in some places. Also, I've not worried about
>> whether the tests pass in serializable mode, since we have problems there
>> already [4]. But this seemed like a good point at which to solicit
>> feedback and see what the cfbot thinks of it.

> Are there spec output changes / new failures, if you apply the patch,
> but do not apply the changes to the spec files?

If you make only the code changes, there are a bunch of diffs stemming
from the removal of the 'error in steps' message prefix. If you just
mechanically remove those from the .out files without touching the .spec
files, most tests pass, but I don't recall whether that's 100% the case.

> Will look at the patch itself in a bit.

I'll have a v2 in a little bit --- the cfbot pointed out that there
were some contrib tests I'd missed fixing, and I found a couple of
other improvements.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2021-06-15 19:17:05 Re: snapshot too old issues, first around wraparound and then more.
Previous Message Andres Freund 2021-06-15 19:03:42 Re: Improving the isolationtester: fewer failures, less delay