Horton

Re: Regression tests vs SERIALIZABLE

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2021-03-17T04:31:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 3:28 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Usually, if we issue a SET in the regression tests, we explicitly RESET
>> as soon thereafter as practical, so as to have a well-defined scope
>> where the script is running under unusual conditions.

> Oh, of course.  Thanks.

> I was wrong to blame that commit, and there are many other tests that
> fail in the back branches.  But since we were down to just one, I went
> ahead and fixed this in the master branch only.

Makes sense to me.  Committed patch looks good.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Fix transaction.sql tests in higher isolation levels.

  2. Drop SERIALIZABLE workaround from parallel query tests.

  3. Fix behavior of AND CHAIN outside of explicit transaction blocks

  4. Enable parallel query with SERIALIZABLE isolation.