Kevin Grittner wrote:
> This now compiles and passes regression tests. I still need to
> re-run all the other tests which Florian and I previously used to
> test the patch. I don't have any reason to expect that they will
> now fail, but one need to be thorough. Once that is confirmed, I
> th
On Aug3, 2010, at 00:43 , Florian Pflug wrote:
> Sounds good. That'll also give me some time to test the RI trigger
> infrastructure now that I've removed the crosscheck code.
Ok, I've found some time do run some additional tests.
I've created a small test suite to compare the behaviour of native
Hi
I've updated mvcc.sgml to explain the new serialization conflict rules for
row-level locks, and added a paragraph to backend/executor/README that explains
the implementation of those. I've chosen backend/executor/README because it
already contains a description of UPDATE handling in READ COM
Joe Conway wrote:
> "make dcheck" is running now (although seems rather slow).
Yeah, most of those tests completely reset the environment for each
permutation. I thought about changing it to update back to the same
"visible" initial state each time, but it struck me that since this
would accu
On 07/18/2010 07:02 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 07/18/2010 11:41 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> To run the tests included in the main patch (if you have python,
>> twisted, etc., installed), after the make check, run make dcheck.
>
> Question about dcheck. After install of twisted, I get:
>
> 8<
On 07/18/2010 11:41 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> To run the tests included in the main patch (if you have python,
> twisted, etc., installed), after the make check, run make dcheck.
Question about dcheck. After install of twisted, I get:
8<-
bash-4.1$ make dcheck
make -
On 07/18/2010 11:41 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> I'm attaching a fresh patch, but I think the only differences are:
Thanks for the detailed info. I managed to make my way through much of
the background info in the papers and wiki yesterday, so I will start
reviewing shortly.
> If you spot an
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Comment style seems to be defined here:
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/source-format.html
as being:
/*
* comment text begins here
* and continues here
*/
You have these formats in your patch:
/* comment text begins here
* and continues here
Florian Pflug wrote:
> On Jul17, 2010, at 18:25 , Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> * Does it follow the project coding guidelines?
>>
>> Comments are not all in standard style.
> Does that refer to the language used, or to the formatting?
Formatting. Comment style seems to be defined here:
http://
On Jul17, 2010, at 18:25 , Kevin Grittner wrote:
> * Does it include reasonable tests, necessary doc patches, etc?
>
> Documentation changes are needed in the "Concurrency Control"
> chapter.
>
> <...>
>
> * Do we want that?
>
> Yes. We seem to have reached consensus on the -hackers list to t
On 7/17/10 12:09 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Joe Conway wrote:
>
>> Should I be installing Florian's patch in addition to yours when I
>> start testing?
>
> There's some manual fix-up needed, primarily because we need to
> differentiate between SERIALIZABLE and REPEATABLE READ isolation
> leve
Joe Conway wrote:
> Should I be installing Florian's patch in addition to yours when I
> start testing?
There's some manual fix-up needed, primarily because we need to
differentiate between SERIALIZABLE and REPEATABLE READ isolation
levels, and therefore replaced the IsXactIsoLevelSerializable
On 07/17/2010 09:25 AM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> I was concerned about its interaction with the other serializable
> patch (by myself and Dan Ports), so I also combined the patches and
> tested. Florian's pgbench test did expose bugs in the *other*
> patch, which I then fixed in the combined settin
=
Submission review
=
* Is the patch in context diff format?
Yes.
* Does it apply cleanly to the current CVS HEAD?
Yes.
* Does it include reasonable tests, necessary doc patches, etc?
There is one pgbench test which shows incorrect behavior without the
p
14 matches
Mail list logo
