Re: [HACKERS] Parallel regress tests (was Re: FOREIGN KEY and shift/reduce)
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel regress tests (was Re: FOREIGN KEY and shift/reduce) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.GSO.4.02A.9912071929470.3057-100000@Panter.DoCS.UU.SE обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel regress tests (was Re: FOREIGN KEY and shift/reduce) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Parallel regress tests (was Re: FOREIGN KEY and
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, Tom Lane wrote: > > Um, you could call another psql from within psql, like so: > > > /* psql script */ > > create this > > select that > > \! psql -f 'second-script' > > select more > > > That satisfies the requirement of two separate sessions and a predefined > > order. > > I assume that the \! command won't continue until the subjob exits? > If so, this doesn't give us any way to verify that query A will wait for > query B to finish ... at least not without locking up the test... I'm kind of losing you here. You want parallel execution *and* a predefined order of execution? In my (limited) book, those contradict each other a little bit. If it helps you can also do this: \! psql -f 'second-script' >& output & and the thus invoked script will happily continue executing even after you quit the first psql. I guess you could also do some simple synchronization things, like have the second psql wait on a file to spring into existence: /* second-script */ \! while [ ! -f /tmp/lock.file ]; do ;; done \! rm /tmp/lock.file Kind of like a simple semaphore. Isn't that what you are getting at? In the overall view of things it almost seems like these kind of tests need a human eye supervising them, because how do really determine "query A waits for query B to finish" otherwise? -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders vaeg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: