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: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-08-23T01:53:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 10:20:48AM -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> So, there is some historical context as to why it is a separate test suite.
> And some of the differences are specific to Greenplum -- e.g. needing to
> connect to a specific database in "utility mode" to do something.

What is "utility mode"?

> The syntax for what would be a "step" in isolation is like this:
> 
> [<#>[flag]:] <sql> | ! <shell scripts or command>
> 
> where # is the session number and flags include the following:
> 
> &: expect blocking behavior
> >: running in background without blocking
> <: join an existing session
> q: quit the given session

These could be transposed as new meta commands for the existing
specs?  Of course not as "step" per-se, but new dedicated commands?

> See the script [1] for parsing the test cases for more details on the 
> syntax and capabilities (it is in Python).

Hmm.  The bar to add a new hard language dependency in the test
suites is very high.  I am not sure that we'd want something with a
python dependency for the tests, also knowing how Python likes
breaking compatibility (isolation2_main() also mentions a dependency
to Python).
--
Michael

Commits

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

  2. Remove dry-run mode from isolationtester