On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I wrote: >> No, because the machines that are failing are showing a "<waiting ...>" >> annotation that your reference output *doesn't* have. I think what is >> actually happening is that these machines are seeing the process as >> waiting and reporting it, whereas on your machine the backend detects >> the deadlock and completes the query (with an error) before >> isolationtester realizes that the process is waiting. > > I confirmed this theory by the expedient of changing the '10ms' setting > in the test script to 1ms (which worked) and 100ms (which did not, on > the same machine). > > I've committed an update that adjusts the timeouts to hopefully ensure > that isolationtester always sees the query as blocked before the deadlock > detector unblocks it; which seems like the behavior we want to test for, > anyway.
Thanks. I really appreciate it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
