On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:01 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> > It is rather a pain to pass down custom options to isolationtester. > For example, I have tested the updated version attached after > hijacking -n into isolation_start_test(). Ugly hack, but for testing > that's enough. Do you make use of this tool in a particular way in > greenplum? Just wondering. > > (Could it make sense to have long options for isolationtester by the > way?) > In Greenplum, we mainly add new tests to a separate isolation framework (called isolation2) which uses a completely different syntax. It doesn't use isolationtester at all. So, I haven't had a use case to add long options to isolationtester yet :) -- Melanie Plageman
