On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks for the tips. Attached is a minimal set of isolation tests. >> I can expand on it if needed, but wanted: >> >> (1) to confirm that this is the right way to do this, and >> >> (2) how long people were willing to tolerate these tests running. >> >> Since we're making this time-based (by popular demand), there must >> be delays to see the new behavior. This very minimal pair of tests >> runs in just under one minute on my i7. Decent coverage of all the >> index AMs would probably require tests which run for at least 10 >> minutes, and probably double that. I don't recall any satisfactory >> resolution to prior discussions about long-running tests. >> >> This is a follow-on patch, just to add isolation testing; the prior >> patch must be applied, too. > > Michael, any chance that you could take a look at what Kevin did here > and see if it looks good?
OK, I am marking this email. Just don't expect any updates from my side until mid/end of next week. > I'm sure the base patch could use more review too, if anyone can find the > time. I guess I am going to need to look at the patch if if feedback for the tests is needed.. There is no point in looking at the tests without poking at the patch. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
