On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the tips. Attached is a minimal set of isolation tests.
>> I can expand on it if needed, but wanted:
>>
>> (1) to confirm that this is the right way to do this, and
>>
>> (2) how long people were willing to tolerate these tests running.
>>
>> Since we're making this time-based (by popular demand), there must
>> be delays to see the new behavior. This very minimal pair of tests
>> runs in just under one minute on my i7. Decent coverage of all the
>> index AMs would probably require tests which run for at least 10
>> minutes, and probably double that. I don't recall any satisfactory
>> resolution to prior discussions about long-running tests.
>>
>> This is a follow-on patch, just to add isolation testing; the prior
>> patch must be applied, too.
>
> Michael, any chance that you could take a look at what Kevin did here
> and see if it looks good?
OK, I am marking this email. Just don't expect any updates from my
side until mid/end of next week.
> I'm sure the base patch could use more review too, if anyone can find the time.
I guess I am going to need to look at the patch if if feedback for the
tests is needed.. There is no point in looking at the tests without
poking at the patch.
--
Michael