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 TRANSACTION ISOLATION
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 define
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
in a permutation?
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net 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?
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 :isolation; }
step
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 any objection
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 07/19/2012 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
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 explicitly. Is
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, not
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
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com 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
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
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
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 does
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
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.comwrote:
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
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
standard
18 matches
Mail list logo
