On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the tips. Attached is a minimal set of isolation tests. > I can expand on it if needed, but wanted: > > (1) to confirm that this is the right way to do this, and > > (2) how long people were willing to tolerate these tests running. > > Since we're making this time-based (by popular demand), there must > be delays to see the new behavior. This very minimal pair of tests > runs in just under one minute on my i7. Decent coverage of all the > index AMs would probably require tests which run for at least 10 > minutes, and probably double that. I don't recall any satisfactory > resolution to prior discussions about long-running tests. > > This is a follow-on patch, just to add isolation testing; the prior > patch must be applied, too.
Michael, any chance that you could take a look at what Kevin did here and see if it looks good? I'm sure the base patch could use more review too, if anyone can find the time. Thanks, -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
