Andres Freund writes:
> Only halfway related: I wonder if we should remove the automatic
> permutation stuff - it's practically never useful. Probably not worth
> changing...
Where it is useful, it saves a lot of error-prone typing ...
> Minor suggestion: I think the folliwing would be a bit eas
Hi,
Only halfway related: I wonder if we should remove the automatic
permutation stuff - it's practically never useful. Probably not worth
changing...
On 2021-06-15 17:09:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> +The general form of a permutation entry is
> +
> + "step_name" [ ( marker [ , marker ... ] )
On 6/14/21 10:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> This is a followup to the conversation at [1], in which we speculated
> about constraining the isolationtester's behavior by annotating the
> specfiles, in order to eliminate common buildfarm failures such as [2]
> and reduce the need to use long delays to s
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2021-06-14 22:57:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is still WIP to some extent, as I've not spent much time looking at
>> specfiles other than the ones with big delays; there may be additional
>> improvements possible in some places. Also, I've not worried about
>> whet
Hi,
On 2021-06-14 22:57:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> This is a followup to the conversation at [1], in which we speculated
> about constraining the isolationtester's behavior by annotating the
> specfiles, in order to eliminate common buildfarm failures such as [2]
> and reduce the need to use long
This is a followup to the conversation at [1], in which we speculated
about constraining the isolationtester's behavior by annotating the
specfiles, in order to eliminate common buildfarm failures such as [2]
and reduce the need to use long delays to stabilize the test results.
I've spent a couple
