From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Add an optional timeout clause to isolationtester step.
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:58:25 -0400
Message-ID: <30450.1584118705@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200313162520.GA80899@nol>
References: <24078.1583958800@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20200311205254.GA2648@alvherre.pgsql>
<20200313090450.6crpgoula5nrgadl@nol>
<32140.1584108740@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20200313162520.GA80899@nol>
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
> It seems that for all the possibly interesting cases, what we want to wait on
> is an heavyweight lock, which is already what isolationtester detects. Maybe
> we could simply implement something like
> step "<name>" [ WAIT UNTIL BLOCKED ] { <SQL> }
> without any change to the blocking detection function?
Um, isn't that the existing built-in behavior?
I could actually imagine some uses for the reverse option, *don't* wait
for it to become blocked but just immediately continue with issuing
the next step.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, rjuju123@gmail.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, michael@paquier.xyz, andres@anarazel.de
Subject: Re: Add an optional timeout clause to isolationtester step.
In-Reply-To: <30450.1584118705@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox