From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Improving the isolationtester: fewer failures, less delay
In-reply-to: <20210615190342.etwfp4mxmuuztumb@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <327948.1623725828@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20210615190342.etwfp4mxmuuztumb@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:03:42 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <437332.1623784464.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:14:24 -0400
Message-ID: <437333.1623784464@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/437333.1623784464%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2021-06-14 22:57:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is still WIP to some extent, as I've not spent much time looking at
>> specfiles other than the ones with big delays; there may be additional
>> improvements possible in some places.  Also, I've not worried about
>> whether the tests pass in serializable mode, since we have problems there
>> already [4].  But this seemed like a good point at which to solicit
>> feedback and see what the cfbot thinks of it.

> Are there spec output changes / new failures, if you apply the patch,
> but do not apply the changes to the spec files?

If you make only the code changes, there are a bunch of diffs stemming
from the removal of the 'error in steps' message prefix.  If you just
mechanically remove those from the .out files without touching the .spec
files, most tests pass, but I don't recall whether that's 100% the case.

> Will look at the patch itself in a bit.

I'll have a v2 in a little bit --- the cfbot pointed out that there
were some contrib tests I'd missed fixing, and I found a couple of
other improvements.

			regards, tom lane