Re: A failure in prepared_xacts test

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A failure in prepared_xacts test
Date: 2024-04-29 22:42:52
Message-ID: ZjAibGF5tvKWjJDs@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 09:45:16AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> TAP tests shouldn't be at risk, because there is no "make
> installcheck" equivalent for them. Each TAP test creates its own
> database instance (or maybe several), so that instance won't have
> anything else going on.

There are a few more 2PC transactions in test_decoding (no
installcheck), temp.sql, test_extensions.sql and pg_stat_statements's
utility.sql (no installcheck) but their GIDs are not that bad.
twophase_stream.sql has a GID "test1", which is kind of generic, but
it won't run in parallel. At the end, only addressing the
prepared_xacts.sql and the ECPG bits looked enough to me, so I've
tweaked these with 7e61e4cc7cfc and called it a day.

I'd be curious about any discussion involving the structure of the
meson tests.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2024-04-29 22:54:20 Re: Support a wildcard in backtrace_functions
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2024-04-29 22:38:00 Re: Internal error codes triggered by tests