| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: why can the isolation tester handle only one waiting process? |
| Date: | 2016-02-09 18:26:08 |
| Message-ID: | 949C052A-D770-4276-859F-55C345F04108@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On February 9, 2016 7:12:23 PM GMT+01:00, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
>wrote:
>> Here's an updated patch series with some more improvements to the
>> isolationtester code, and some better test cases.
>
>OK, here's a final set of patches that I intend to commit in the next
>few days if nobody objects, per discussion on the thread about
>parallelism fixes. It's basically the same as the previous set, but
>there's a bug fix and an additional test case.
Fwiw, as the person starting the ruckus over there, I think something like isolationtester has a much lower need for careful review, consensus et al than say lock.c and deadlock.c.
Andres
---
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Corey Huinker | 2016-02-09 18:32:43 | Re: proposal: schema PL session variables |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-09 18:12:23 | Re: why can the isolation tester handle only one waiting process? |