Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
> Actually, since we (mostly you) found explanations for all the
> disallowed phenomena, with no PostgreSQL anomalies showing when
> using the corrected test code, I was going to call it done. Well,
> except that I think some of your tests are interesting enough to ask
>
Robert Haas wrote:
>
> I would be curious to see (updated, corrected) results on older versions.
>
If I am correct, Kevin Grittner is writing a review of the code and the
testing methods. I think it would be wise to wait for the outcome of this.
Afterwards, I could post the code and the executi
A few updates from my side:
Kevin helped me find two bugs in my test suite. The first: the test suite
had a syntax error in setting the isolation level, which resulted in not
setting an isolation level at all. Secondly, I made a mistake in the phantom
detection code, which resulted in detecting pha
ps. Tomorrow I will discuss my approach with my supervisor. In case of a
wrong approach or mistake, I'll post it.
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/BUG-6269-Anomaly-detection-tp4936233p4940716.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - bugs mailing list archive at Nabb
I executed the tests on PostgreSQL 9.1.1. The only result not expected was
phantoms in the serializable isolation level. All other results were as
expected.
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/BUG-6269-Anomaly-detection-tp4936233p4940614.html
Sent from the Pos
The report is based on a java application that can be found here:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19316575/dbtp.zip. This zip-file also includes an
SQL file that creates the used tables and the queries that are executed.
I put a README-file in the zip with installation instructions. Most easy to
do the te
