On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> You could possibly try to force a single ordering by inserting a sleep
>> into some step of the test --- we have some other isolation tests that
>> do it that way. But it's hard to predict how much sleep is enough.
>
> I don't think it's applicable here - s2/3 are woken up by the same lock
> release. The order in which the OS lets them run primarily determines
> the result visibility. A sleep wouldn't hide the difference in output
> order afaics. I guess we could hide the combined steps (insert & sleep)
> in a function, but ...
There is an argument to be made for fixing isolationtester to
accommodate this kind of thing.
--
Peter Geoghegan
