| From: | Asim R P <apraveen(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps |
| Date: | 2019-08-27 13:35:50 |
| Message-ID: | CANXE4TcqqB6Nxdi725CXF-as4RxO+gK=Rvn=58R_WA_51FDZMQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 9:08 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> On 2019-Aug-23, Asim R P wrote:
>
> > As part of the fault injector patch set [1], I added a new "blocking"
> > keyword to isolation grammar so that a step can be declared as blocking.
> > See patch 0002-Add-syntax-to-declare-a-step-that-is-expected-to-block.
>
> One point to that implementation is that in that design a step is
> globally declared to be blocking, but in reality that's the wrong way to
> see things: a step might block in some permutations and not others. So
> I think we should do as Michael suggested: it's the permutation that has
> to have a way to mark a given step as blocking, not the step itself.
Thank you for the feedback. I've changed patch 0002 accordingly, please
take another look:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANXE4TdvSi7Yia_5sV82%2BMHf0WcUSN9u6_X8VEUBv-YStphd%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com
Asim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-08-27 13:46:24 | Re: Why overhead of SPI is so large? |
| Previous Message | Asim R P | 2019-08-27 13:27:46 | Re: Fault injection framework |