On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 04:49:04PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2021-06-13 15:22:12 -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 06:09:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > We might be able to get rid of the stuff about concurrent step > > > completion in isolationtester.c if we required the spec files > > > to use annotations to force a deterministic step completion > > > order in all such cases. > > > > Yeah. If we're willing to task spec authors with that, the test program > > can't > > then guess wrong under unusual timing. > > I think it'd make it *easier* for spec authors. Right now one needs to > find some way to get a consistent ordering, which is often hard and > complicates tests way more than specifying an explicit ordering > would. And it's often unreliable, as evidenced here and in plenty other > tests.
Fine with me. Even if it weren't easier for spec authors, it shifts efforts to spec authors and away from buildfarm observers, which is a good thing.
