Re: Isolation tests vs. SERIALIZABLE isolation level - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Isolation tests vs. SERIALIZABLE isolation level
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGJ9bsr_byg=DKf6yjDdNS-rizQk5hYMMWFBA3_b0Barog@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Isolation tests vs. SERIALIZABLE isolation level  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 2:09 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> * Do we still care about that policy?

> * If so, who's going to fix the above-listed problems?

> * Should we try to get some routine testing of this case
> in place?

I wondered the same in commit 37929599 (the same problem for
src/test/regress, which now passes but only in master, not the back
branches).  I doubt it will find real bugs very often, and I doubt
many people would enjoy the slowdown if it were always on, but it
might make sense to have something like PG_TEST_EXTRA that can be used
to run the tests at all three levels, and then turn that on in a few
strategic places like CI and a BF animal or two.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: PG 14 release notes, first draft
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Improving the isolationtester: fewer failures, less delay