Horton

Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-08-20T05:17:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:34:45AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I created the dry-run mode to be able to easily generate the set of
> possible permutations for a new test, then edit the result and put it
> back in the spec file; but after the deadlock tests were added (with
> necessary hacking of the lock-detection in isolationtester) that manner
> of operation became almost completely useless.  Maybe we need to rethink
> what facilities isolationtester offers -- possibly making dry-run have a
> completely different behavior than currently, which I doubt anybody is
> using.

I am not sure exactly how it could be redesigned, and with n!
permutations that easily leads to bloat of the generated output.  I
think that --dry-run (well -n) is a bit misleading as option name
though as it prints only permutations.  Still, keeping it around has
no real cost, so it is not a big deal.

(Looking at the gpdb code, it does not seem to be used.)

> All that being said, I have no objections to this patch (but I didn't
> review it closely).

Thanks.
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Detect unused steps in isolation specs and do some cleanup

  2. Remove dry-run mode from isolationtester