On 8/18/20 9:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This thread started on committers, at
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200818234532.uiafo5br5lo6zhya%40alap3.anarazel.de
>
> In it I wanted to add a isolation test around prepared transactions:
>
> On 2020-08-18 16:45:32 -0700, Andres Fr
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 07:34:00PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> It seems like the buildfarm ought to configure the started server with a
> bunch of prepared transactions, in that case? At least going forward?
Agreed. Testing with max_prepared_transactions > 0 has much more
value than not, for su
Hi,
On 2020-08-18 22:24:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > ISTM we should just add an alternative output for disabled prepared
> > xacts, and re-add the test?
>
> I believe the buildfarm runs the isolation step with "make installcheck",
> so if you're hoping to get buildfarm c
Andres Freund writes:
> ISTM we should just add an alternative output for disabled prepared
> xacts, and re-add the test?
I believe the buildfarm runs the isolation step with "make installcheck",
so if you're hoping to get buildfarm coverage that way, you're mistaken.
Having said that, it'd prob
Hi,
This thread started on committers, at
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200818234532.uiafo5br5lo6zhya%40alap3.anarazel.de
In it I wanted to add a isolation test around prepared transactions:
On 2020-08-18 16:45:32 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think it's worth adding an isolation tes
