On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 03:17:02PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 07/08/2019 14:42, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> I think I'd put nowait and skip locked under a separate category "FOR
>> UPDATE" or "row locking" or something, but maybe that's just me... can
>> you call that stuff DML?
>
> Yeah, I
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The problem in "timeouts" is that it has to use drearily long timeouts
>> to be sure that the behavior will be stable even on really slow machines
>> (think CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS or valgrind --- it can take seconds for them
>> to reach a w
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> The elephant in the room is the 'timeouts' test, which takes about 40
> seconds, out of a total runtime of 90 seconds. So we'd really want to
> run that in parallel with everything else. Or split 'timeouts' into
> multiple tests that could run in parallel. I don't t
On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
> The problem in "timeouts" is that it has to use drearily long timeouts
> to be sure that the behavior will be stable even on really slow machines
> (think CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS or valgrind --- it can take seconds for them
> to reach a waiting state that other machi
On 2019-Aug-07, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> The elephant in the room is the 'timeouts' test, which takes about 40
> seconds, out of a total runtime of 90 seconds. So we'd really want to run
> that in parallel with everything else. Or split 'timeouts' into multiple
> tests that could run in paralle
On 07/08/2019 18:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
Something related I've been wondering about is whether we could
parallelize the isolation tests. A difficulty here is that the
slowest ones tend to also be timing-sensitive, such that running
them in parallel would incr
On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Something related I've been wondering about is whether we could
> parallelize the isolation tests. A difficulty here is that the
> slowest ones tend to also be timing-sensitive, such that running
> them in parallel would increase the risk of failure. But we
> co
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> The list of tests in src/test/isolation/isolation_schedule has grown
> over the years. Originally, they were all related to Serializable
> Snapshot Isolation, but there are different kinds of concurrency tests
> there now. More tests is good, but the schedule file h
On 07/08/2019 14:42, Thomas Munro wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:28 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
The list of tests in src/test/isolation/isolation_schedule has grown
over the years. Originally, they were all related to Serializable
Snapshot Isolation, but there are different kinds of concurre
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 11:28 PM Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> The list of tests in src/test/isolation/isolation_schedule has grown
> over the years. Originally, they were all related to Serializable
> Snapshot Isolation, but there are different kinds of concurrency tests
> there now. More tests is g
The list of tests in src/test/isolation/isolation_schedule has grown
over the years. Originally, they were all related to Serializable
Snapshot Isolation, but there are different kinds of concurrency tests
there now. More tests is good, but the schedule file has grown into a
big inscrutable lis
11 matches
Mail list logo
