On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 4:41 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Michael Paquier writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:44:45PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> >> I just wanted to let you know that TimescaleDB uses
> >> pg_isolation_regress and occasionally there are reports from some
> >>
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:44:45PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
>> I just wanted to let you know that TimescaleDB uses
>> pg_isolation_regress and occasionally there are reports from some
>> suffering/puzzled users/developers, e.g. [1]. Not 100% sure if it
>> makes
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 12:44:45PM +0300, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> I just wanted to let you know that TimescaleDB uses
> pg_isolation_regress and occasionally there are reports from some
> suffering/puzzled users/developers, e.g. [1]. Not 100% sure if it
> makes investing the time into
Hi hackers,
> Any opinions on backpatching?
> Other than src/test/modules/brin, the ISOLATION users don't look
> much like real extensions (rather than test scaffolding), either.
> Out of core, the only thing I can see with isolation tests is rum, but
> it uses a workaround to have an access to
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020, 09:00 Michael Paquier, wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 01:06:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Other than src/test/modules/brin, the ISOLATION users don't look
> > much like real extensions (rather than test scaffolding), either.
> > If you discount test scaffolding modules
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 01:06:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Other than src/test/modules/brin, the ISOLATION users don't look
> much like real extensions (rather than test scaffolding), either.
> If you discount test scaffolding modules then the use-counts are
> more like 4 to 1.
Out of core, the
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I forgot to mention that I considered backpatching this and decided not
> to, but only because it might confuse packagers if they see unrecognized
> files in the installation. I realize now that c3a0818460a8 was
> back-patched. Any opinions on backpatching?
We've
On 2020-Oct-15, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Pushed, thanks.
I forgot to mention that I considered backpatching this and decided not
to, but only because it might confuse packagers if they see unrecognized
files in the installation. I realize now that c3a0818460a8 was
back-patched. Any opinions on
On 2020-Sep-30, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 22:09, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > I happened to come across this thread by accident, and I tend to agree
> > that we need to install both isolationtester and pg_isolation_regress to
> > the pgxs dirs, just like we do pg_regress. I
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 22:09, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2018-Jun-01, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> > On 28 May 2018 at 15:06, Craig Ringer wrote:
> >
> > > Per topic, the Pg makefiles install pg_regress (for use by extensions)
> and
> > > htey install the isolationtester, but they don't install
> >
On 2018-Jun-01, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 28 May 2018 at 15:06, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> > Per topic, the Pg makefiles install pg_regress (for use by extensions) and
> > htey install the isolationtester, but they don't install
> > pg_isolation_regress.
> >
> > We should install it too.
I
On 28 May 2018 at 15:06, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Hi
>
> Per topic, the Pg makefiles install pg_regress (for use by extensions) and
> htey install the isolationtester, but they don't install
> pg_isolation_regress.
>
> We should install it too.
>
Now with a patch that isn't brain-dead.
I'm
Hi
Per topic, the Pg makefiles install pg_regress (for use by extensions) and
htey install the isolationtester, but they don't install
pg_isolation_regress.
We should install it too.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training
13 matches
Mail list logo
