Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps
| От | Melanie Plageman |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAAKRu_ZtqgdSU8zFuTp-Ga1kT2Kst9ORcbfTR-B7X9GtQTpt5A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:01 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
It is rather a pain to pass down custom options to isolationtester.
For example, I have tested the updated version attached after
hijacking -n into isolation_start_test(). Ugly hack, but for testing
that's enough. Do you make use of this tool in a particular way in
greenplum? Just wondering.
(Could it make sense to have long options for isolationtester by the
way?)
In Greenplum, we mainly add new tests to a separate isolation
framework (called isolation2) which uses a completely different
syntax. It doesn't use isolationtester at all. So, I haven't had a use
case to add long options to isolationtester yet :)
framework (called isolation2) which uses a completely different
syntax. It doesn't use isolationtester at all. So, I haven't had a use
case to add long options to isolationtester yet :)
--
Melanie Plageman
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: