| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Isolation tests vs. SERIALIZABLE isolation level |
| Date: | 2021-06-15 02:50:28 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGJ9bsr_byg=DKf6yjDdNS-rizQk5hYMMWFBA3_b0Barog@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 2:09 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> * Do we still care about that policy?
> * If so, who's going to fix the above-listed problems?
> * Should we try to get some routine testing of this case
> in place?
I wondered the same in commit 37929599 (the same problem for
src/test/regress, which now passes but only in master, not the back
branches). I doubt it will find real bugs very often, and I doubt
many people would enjoy the slowdown if it were always on, but it
might make sense to have something like PG_TEST_EXTRA that can be used
to run the tests at all three levels, and then turn that on in a few
strategic places like CI and a BF animal or two.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-15 02:57:08 | Improving the isolationtester: fewer failures, less delay |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2021-06-15 02:49:21 | Re: PG 14 release notes, first draft |