Re: Add an optional timeout clause to isolationtester step.

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 05:52:54PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2020-Mar-11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We could re-use Julien's ideas about the isolation spec syntax by
>> making it be, roughly,
>> 
>> step "<name>" { <SQL> } [ blocked if "<wait_event_type>" "<wait_event>" ]
>> 
>> and then those items would need to be passed as parameters of the prepared
>> query.
> 
> I think for test readability's sake, it'd be better to put the BLOCKED
> IF clause ahead of the SQL, so you can write it in the same line and let
> the SQL flow to the next one:
> 
> STEP "long_select" BLOCKED IF "lwlock" "ClogControlLock"
>   { select foo from pg_class where ... some more long clauses ... }
> 
> otherwise I think a step would require more lines to write.

I prefer this version.

>> I'd like to see an attempt to rewrite some of the existing
>> timeout-dependent test cases to use this facility instead of
>> long timeouts.  If we could get rid of the timeouts in the
>> deadlock tests, that'd go a long way towards showing that this
>> idea is actually any good.
> 
> +1.  Those long timeouts are annoying enough that infrastructure to make
> a run shorter in normal circumstances might be sufficient justification
> for this patch ...

+1.  A patch does not seem to be that complicated.  Now isn't it too
late for v13?
--
Michael