From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: isolationtester and invalid permutations |
Date: | 2011-10-27 12:09:19 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob4vFWJZHiwZ=QtG3EaV_AfBN5DHM8n57LVD70DzA=D7g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Instead of simply aborting a spec that specifies running commands on
> blocked sessions (what we call an invalid permutation), it seems more
> useful to report the problem, cleanup the sessions, and continue with
> the next permutation.
>
> This, in conjunction with the dry-run patch I submitted earlier, makes
> it easier to determine a working spec: dry-run the spec; copy the
> so-generated permutation lines into the spec; run the spec normally,
> which reports the invalid permutations; comment out the invalid
> permutations from the spec; done.
>
> The attached patch, again from Alexander Shulgin (with some tweaks from
> me) does that.
>
> Comments?
Seems sensible. I think we should avoid including invalid
permutations in our regression test suite, but this still seems useful
for the reasons you mention.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Erik Rijkers | 2011-10-27 12:45:24 | Re: (PATCH) Adding CORRESPONDING (NULL error) |
Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-10-27 12:03:23 | Re: Hot Backup with rsync fails at pg_clog if under load |