On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:37:39 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
>>> Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> writes:
>> A new regression test trying to detect runaway INSERTs/UPDATEs.
>If there is such a problem it will surely be found by the other
That's what I hoped when I sent my heap tuple header patches.
Actually this test catches a bug, which was in CVS from 2002-07-02
until 2002-07-30 and was not discovered during this time. You have to
know, that I am a lazy person :-) I wouldn't have written this test,
if the bug was found by one of the other tests.
> I don't see a need to insert a test that has an
>acknowledged system dependency in order to detect this.
You mean, that the test might fail on a system that takes more than
ten seconds to INSERT or UPDATE a single row? I don't think this is a
real problem. Should we change the timeout to 30 seconds? 60? 3600?
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-08-29 17:22:43|
|Subject: Re: Visibility regression test |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-08-29 17:18:14|
|Subject: Re: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs) |