On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 4:12 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 11:03 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 5:16 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Based on the off list discussion, I have modified the test based on >> > the idea showed in >> > "isolation/specs/insert-conflict-specconflict.spec", other open point >> > we had about the race condition that how to ensure that when we unlock >> > any session it make progress, IMHO the isolation tested is designed in >> > a way that either all the waiting session returns with the output or >> > again block on a heavy weight lock before performing the next step. >> > >> >> Few comments: >> 1. The test has a lot of similarities and test duplication with what >> we are doing in insert-conflict-specconflict.spec. Can we move it to >> insert-conflict-specconflict.spec? I understand that having it in >> test_decoding has the advantage that we can have all decoding tests in >> one place but OTOH, we can avoid a lot of test-code duplication if we >> add it in insert-conflict-specconflict.spec. >> > > It seems the isolation test runs on the default configuration, will it be a > good idea to change the wal_level to logical for the whole isolation tester > folder? >
No, that doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Let's keep it in test_decoding then. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
