Re: Do we expect tests to work with default_transaction_isolation=serializable

2019-06-17 Thread Michael Paquier
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:47:39AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 03:55:06PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >> Currently that's not the case. When running check-world with PGOPTIONS >> set to -c default_transaction_isolation=serializable I get easy to fix >> failures (isolation, pl

Re: Do we expect tests to work with default_transaction_isolation=serializable

2019-06-15 Thread Noah Misch
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 03:55:06PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > I seem to recall that we expect tests to either work with > default_transaction_isolation=serializable, or to set it to a different > level where needed. > > Currently that's not the case. When running check-world with PGOPTIONS > se

Re: Do we expect tests to work with default_transaction_isolation=serializable

2019-05-19 Thread Thomas Munro
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:55 AM Andres Freund wrote: > I seem to recall that we expect tests to either work with > default_transaction_isolation=serializable, or to set it to a different > level where needed. Here are a couple of bits where that is no longer necessary after bb16aba5. -- Thomas

Do we expect tests to work with default_transaction_isolation=serializable

2019-05-19 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, I seem to recall that we expect tests to either work with default_transaction_isolation=serializable, or to set it to a different level where needed. Currently that's not the case. When running check-world with PGOPTIONS set to -c default_transaction_isolation=serializable I get easy to fix f