Thread: pgsql: isolationtester: append session name to application_name.
isolationtester: append session name to application_name. When writing / debugging an isolation test it sometimes is useful to see which session holds what lock etc. To make it easier, both as part of spec files and interactively, append the session name to application_name. Since b1907d688 application_name already contains the test name, this appends the session's name to that. insert-conflict-specconflict did something like this manually, which can now be removed. As we have done lately with other test infrastructure improvements, backpatch this change, to make it easier to backpatch tests. Author: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> Reviewed-By: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> Reviewed-By: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20211211012052.2blmzcmxnxqawd2z@alap3.anarazel.de Backpatch: 10-, to make backpatching of tests easier. Branch ------ REL_10_STABLE Details ------- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/dbc5cdd5cbb8b9f98b880c0e49d613729bf1b839 Modified Files -------------- src/test/isolation/isolationtester.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Hi, On 2021-12-13 20:06:10 +0000, Andres Freund wrote: > isolationtester: append session name to application_name. > > When writing / debugging an isolation test it sometimes is useful to see which > session holds what lock etc. To make it easier, both as part of spec files and > interactively, append the session name to application_name. Since b1907d688 > application_name already contains the test name, this appends the session's > name to that. > > insert-conflict-specconflict did something like this manually, which can now > be removed. > > As we have done lately with other test infrastructure improvements, backpatch > this change, to make it easier to backpatch tests. > > Author: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> > Reviewed-By: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> > Reviewed-By: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> > Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20211211012052.2blmzcmxnxqawd2z@alap3.anarazel.de > Backpatch: 10-, to make backpatching of tests easier. Eeelpout failed 020_archive_status.pl with error running SQL: 'psql:<stdin>:1: ERROR: checkpoint request failed https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=eelpout&dt=021-12-13%2020%3A16%3A06 after this and the preceding commit. As neither of two commits since the last successful run touched anything relevant to tap tests or checkpoints I'm assuming it's just chance that eelput failed right now. Greetings, Andres Freund
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 05:49:49PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > Eeelpout failed 020_archive_status.pl with > error running SQL: 'psql:<stdin>:1: ERROR: checkpoint request failed > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=eelpout&dt=021-12-13%2020%3A16%3A06 > after this and the preceding commit. > > As neither of two commits since the last successful run touched anything > relevant to tap tests or checkpoints I'm assuming it's just chance that eelput > failed right now. Noah has reported this failure coming from the buildfarm in the past, so that's unrelated. -- Michael