| From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps |
| Date: | 2019-08-21 18:04:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAAKRu_ZtqgdSU8zFuTp-Ga1kT2Kst9ORcbfTR-B7X9GtQTpt5A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:01 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> It is rather a pain to pass down custom options to isolationtester.
> For example, I have tested the updated version attached after
> hijacking -n into isolation_start_test(). Ugly hack, but for testing
> that's enough. Do you make use of this tool in a particular way in
> greenplum? Just wondering.
>
> (Could it make sense to have long options for isolationtester by the
> way?)
>
In Greenplum, we mainly add new tests to a separate isolation
framework (called isolation2) which uses a completely different
syntax. It doesn't use isolationtester at all. So, I haven't had a use
case to add long options to isolationtester yet :)
--
Melanie Plageman
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2019-08-21 18:07:19 | Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-08-21 17:22:33 | Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs |