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.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to