On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 09:21:45AM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > Thanks for the patch! I started to look at it during the weekend, but > I got interrupted and unfortunately didn't had time to look at it > since.
No problem, thanks for looking at it. I have looked at it again this morning, and applied it. > The fix looks good to me. I also tried multiple failure scenario and > it's unsurprisingly working just fine. Should we add some regression > tests for that? I guess most of it could be borrowed from the patch > to fix the toast index issue I sent last week. I have doubts when it comes to use a strategy based on pg_cancel_backend() and a match of application_name (see for example 5ad72ce but I cannot find the associated thread). I think that we could design something more robust here and usable by all tests, with two things coming into my mind: - A new meta-command for isolation tests to be able to cancel a session with PQcancel(). - Fault injection in the backend. For the case of this thread, the cancellation command would be a better match. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature