On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:16:29PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Noah Misch's message of jue jul 26 06:28:54 -0400 2012:
> > var "isolation" = { "rc" => "READ COMMITTED", "rr" => "REPEATABLE READ"
> > }
>
> Agreed. What would be the syntax to specify a particular value to use
Excerpts from Noah Misch's message of jue jul 26 06:28:54 -0400 2012:
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:08:09AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I would expect that if no permutations are specified, all possible
> > values for a certain setting would be generated. That way it'd be easy
> > to defi
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:08:09AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Noah Misch's message of dom jul 22 17:11:53 -0400 2012:
> > setting "i-rc" "isolation" = "READ COMMITTED"
> > setting "i-rr" "isolation" = "REPEATABLE READ"
> >
> > session "s1"
> > setup{ BEGIN
Excerpts from Noah Misch's message of dom jul 22 17:11:53 -0400 2012:
> I was pondering something like this:
>
> setting "i-rc" "isolation" = "READ COMMITTED"
> setting "i-rr" "isolation" = "REPEATABLE READ"
>
> session "s1"
> setup{ BEGIN TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL :is
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On fre, 2012-07-20 at 13:15 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, I would like to remove the prepared_transactions test from
>>> the main isolation schedule, and add a new Make target which runs that
>>> test explicitly. Is there any objection to that?
> Why was
On fre, 2012-07-20 at 13:15 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 07/19/2012 09:54 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Meanwhile, I would like to remove the prepared_transactions test from
> > the main isolation schedule, and add a new Make target which runs that
> > test explicitly. Is there a
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 01:39:34PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Noah Misch's message of mar jul 17 16:28:32 -0400 2012:
> > The foreign key tests, however, would benefit
> > from running under all three isolation levels. Let's control it per-spec
> > instead of repeating the entire
On 07/20/2012 01:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not thrilled with replicating the test-list file either. But it is
not necessary: look at the way the "bigtest" target is defined in the
main regression makefile. You can just add some more test names on the
command line, to be done in addition to wh
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of vie jul 20 13:15:12 -0400 2012:
>>> Meanwhile, I would like to remove the prepared_transactions test from
>>> the main isolation schedule, and add a new Make target which runs that
>>> test explicitly. Is there any objection to t
On 07/20/2012 01:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of vie jul 20 13:15:12 -0400 2012:
On 07/19/2012 09:54 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Meanwhile, I would like to remove the prepared_transactions test from
the main isolation schedule, and add a new Make target w
Excerpts from Noah Misch's message of mar jul 17 16:28:32 -0400 2012:
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:56:19PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > However, there's more work to do in isolation testing. It'd be good to
> > have it being routinely run in serializable isolation level, for
> > example,
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of vie jul 20 13:15:12 -0400 2012:
>
> On 07/19/2012 09:54 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Meanwhile, I would like to remove the prepared_transactions test from
> > the main isolation schedule, and add a new Make target which runs that
> > test e
On 07/19/2012 09:54 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Meanwhile, I would like to remove the prepared_transactions test from
the main isolation schedule, and add a new Make target which runs that
test explicitly. Is there any objection to that?
Here's the patch for that.
cheers
andrew
diff
On 07/17/2012 04:28 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:56:19PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of dom jul 15 16:42:22 -0400 2012:
I'm looking into that. But given that the default is to set
max_prepared_transactions to 0, shouldn't we just remo
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:56:19PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of dom jul 15 16:42:22 -0400 2012:
> > I'm looking into that. But given that the default is to set
> > max_prepared_transactions to 0, shouldn't we just remove that test from the
> > normal inst
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of dom jul 15 16:42:22 -0400 2012:
> I'm looking into that. But given that the default is to set
> max_prepared_transactions to 0, shouldn't we just remove that test from the
> normal installcheck schedule?
>
> We could provide an alternative schedule that
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of vie jul 13 16:05:37 -0400 2012:
> > Why does the isolation check take such a long time? On some of my slower
> > buildfarm members I am thinking of disabling it because it takes so
> > long. This s
Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of vie jul 13 16:05:37 -0400 2012:
> Why does the isolation check take such a long time? On some of my slower
> buildfarm members I am thinking of disabling it because it takes so
> long. This single test typically takes longer than a full serial
> standar
Why does the isolation check take such a long time? On some of my slower
buildfarm members I am thinking of disabling it because it takes so
long. This single test typically takes longer than a full serial
standard regression test. Is there any way we could make it faster?
cheers
andrew
--
19 matches
Mail list logo
