Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 05.07.2011 20:06, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> In reviewing the recent fix to 2PC coverage in SSI, I found some >> cases which didn't seem to be covered. Dan bit the bullet and >> came up with an additional isolation test to rigorously cover all >> the permutations, to find *all* 2PC statement orderings which >> weren't working right. Because it was so big, he pared out tests >> which were redundant, in that they exercised the same code paths >> and pointed at the same issues. A patch to add this test is >> attached. Run against HEAD it shows the errors. It's kinda big, >> but I think it's worth having. > > I agree it'd be very nice to have this test, but 2.3 MB of > expected output is a bit excessive. Let's try to cut that down > into something more palatable. OK > There's two expected output files for this, one for > max_prepared_xacts=0 and another for the "normal" case. The > max_prepared_xacts=0 case isn't very interesting, since all the > PREPARE TRANSACTION commands fail. I think we should adjust the > test harness to not run these tests at all if > max_prepared_xacts=0. It would be better to skip the test and > print out a notice pointing out that it was not run, it'll just > give a false sense of security to run the test and report success, > when it didn't test anything useful. > > That alone cuts the size of the expected output to about 1 MB. OK. I'll work on this tonight unless Dan jumps in to claim it. > That's much better, although it's still a lot of weight just for > expected output. However, it compresses extremely well, to about > 16 KB, so this isn't an issue for the size of distribution > tarballs and such, only for git checkouts and on-disk size of > extracted tarballs. I think that would be acceptable, although we > could easily cut it a bit further if we want to. For example > leaving out the word "step" from all the lines of executed test > steps would cut it by about 80 KB. That seems simple enough. Any other ideas? >> Attached is also a patch to fix those, so that all permutations >> work. > > Thanks, committed the bug fix with some additional comments. Thanks! -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
