Thread

1. Multiple setup steps for isolation tests

   Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov> — 2012-09-03T18:28:49Z

   I just today found that the index-only scan feature has broken SSI. 
   I don't think it will take much to fix, and I'm looking at that, but
   the first thing I wanted was a test to show the breakage.  I couldn't
   find a way to do that without running VACUUM after loading data to
   the test tables, and because VACUUM refuses to run in a
   multi-statement batch I propose the following patch to the isolation
   testing code, which allows multiple setup blocks.  Using this code I
   now have an isolation test to show the breakage.
    
   If there are no objections, I will apply this to HEAD and 9.2.
    
   I'm working on a fix to the bug itself.
    
   -Kevin
   
   
   

2. Re: Multiple setup steps for isolation tests

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2012-09-03T19:47:20Z

   "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
   > I just today found that the index-only scan feature has broken SSI. 
   > I don't think it will take much to fix, and I'm looking at that, but
   > the first thing I wanted was a test to show the breakage.
   
   Ugh.  That sounds like a release-blocker.  What's your ETA for a fix?
   
   > I couldn't
   > find a way to do that without running VACUUM after loading data to
   > the test tables, and because VACUUM refuses to run in a
   > multi-statement batch I propose the following patch to the isolation
   > testing code, which allows multiple setup blocks.  Using this code I
   > now have an isolation test to show the breakage.
    
   > If there are no objections, I will apply this to HEAD and 9.2.
   
   The grammar changes look wrong: I think you eliminated the ability to
   have zero setup steps, no?  Instead, setup_list should expand to either
   empty or "setup_list setup".
   
   			regards, tom lane