From: Michael Paquier [mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz]
> So I would propose to just do that later. I have looked a second time at
> your patch, attached is the set of tests I have run:
Thanks so much, that has helped me a lot!
> I have one small comment though. The comment block at the beginning of
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> +# Concurrency error from GetTupleForTrigger
> +# Concurrency error from ExecLockRows
>
> I think you don't need to mention above sentences in spec files.
> Apart from that, your patch looks good to me. I have marked it as
> Ready For Committ
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:52:32PM -0500, David Steele wrote:
> On 1/30/18 3:01 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> The purpose of this test to be ensure nothing else is in the directory.
> As the tests get more complex I think keeping track of the state will be
> important. In other words, this is reall
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:08:06AM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Definitely. The another rationale for the value is that regtest
> fails with the numbers less than 20. So it's not 11 but
> 20. Currently regtest should succeed with that number of
> connections as written in parallel_schedule and
101 - 104 of 104 matches
Mail list logo