Michael Paquier writes:
> Nobody has complained about the removal of --dry-run with 13~. The
> second one would cause tests to fail after a minor upgrade for
> extensions using isolationtester, but it seems like a good thing to
> inform people about anyway. So, okay, both parts are done.
Thanks
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 09:10:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, it only results in a message in the output file anyway.
That itself would blow up the buildfarm, as 06fdc4e has proved.
> Yes please.
Nobody has complained about the removal of --dry-run with 13~. The
second one would cause tests
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 03:33:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> After checking cross-version diffs to see how painful that is likely
>> to be, I'm inclined to also back-patch Michael's v13 commits
>> 989d23b04beac0c26f44c379b04ac781eaa4265e
>> Detect unused steps in isolatio
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 03:33:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> After checking cross-version diffs to see how painful that is likely
> to be, I'm inclined to also back-patch Michael's v13 commits
>
> 989d23b04beac0c26f44c379b04ac781eaa4265e
> Detect unused steps in isolation specs and do some clea
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021, at 12:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2021-06-15 22:44:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> + memset(&popt, 0, sizeof(popt));
> >> + popt.header = true;
> >> + popt.align = true;
> >> + popt.fieldSep = "|";
> >> + PQprint(stdout, res, &popt);
>
> > Is
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2021-06-15 22:44:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +memset(&popt, 0, sizeof(popt));
>> +popt.header = true;
>> +popt.align = true;
>> +popt.fieldSep = "|";
>> +PQprint(stdout, res, &popt);
> Is there an argument for not aligning because that can make diff
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2021-Jun-16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hearing few objections, I'll plan on back-patching. I'm thinking that the
>> best thing to do is apply these changes after beta2 wraps, but before we
>> branch v14.
> Great.
After checking cross-version diffs to see how painful that is
Hi,
On 2021-06-15 22:44:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Here's a really quick-and-dirty patch to see what that would look
> like. I haven't bothered here to update the expected-files outside
> the main src/test/isolation directory, nor to fix the variant files.
Neat.
> + memset(&popt, 0, sizeo
On 2021-Jun-16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > I'm +1 for back-patching this class of change. I've wasted time adapting a
> > back-patch's test case to account for non-back-patched test infrastructure
> > changes. Every back-patch of test infrastructure has been a strict win from
> >
Noah Misch writes:
> I'm +1 for back-patching this class of change. I've wasted time adapting a
> back-patch's test case to account for non-back-patched test infrastructure
> changes. Every back-patch of test infrastructure has been a strict win from
> my perspective.
Hearing few objections, I'
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 09:43:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2021-06-15 19:26:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Going forward it wouldn't be a problem, but back-patching isolation
> >> test cases might find it annoying. On the other hand, my nearby
> >> patch to improve i
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2021-06-15 19:26:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Going forward it wouldn't be a problem, but back-patching isolation
>> test cases might find it annoying. On the other hand, my nearby
>> patch to improve isolation test stability is already going to create
>> issues of that
Hi,
On 2021-06-15 19:26:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Going forward it wouldn't be a problem, but back-patching isolation
> test cases might find it annoying. On the other hand, my nearby
> patch to improve isolation test stability is already going to create
> issues of that sort. (Unless, dare I
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2021-Jun-15, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If we wanted to buy into that, I'd think about discarding this
>> ad-hoc code altogether in favor of using one of libpq's fe-print.c
>> routines. But I'm not really sure that the small legibility gains
>> that would result are worth mass
On 2021-Jun-15, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've been spending a lot of time looking at isolationtester results
> over the past couple of days, and gotten really annoyed at how poorly
> it formats query results. In particular, any column heading or value
> that is 15 characters or longer is not separated f
I've been spending a lot of time looking at isolationtester results
over the past couple of days, and gotten really annoyed at how poorly
it formats query results. In particular, any column heading or value
that is 15 characters or longer is not separated from the next column,
rendering the output
16 matches
Mail list logo
