Thread

1. Re: Multiple setup steps for isolation tests

   Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov> — 2012-09-03T21:23:19Z

   > Tom Lane  wrote:
   > "Kevin Grittner"  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 have a fix now.  I just got done testing it.  I will post right
   after this, and can apply as soon as I know there are no objections.
    
   >> 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".
    
   I tried that first, but had shift/reduce conflicts.  I noticed that
   there were no *tests* without setup so far, and it's hard to imagine
   when that would be sensible, so I didn't feel too bad requiring the
   setup list for the test but leaving a single, optional, setup for
   each connection.  If you can suggest how I could move to a list and
   still keep it optional without the shift/reduce problems, I'd be
   happy to do it.  I just didn't see any obvious way to do it.  But
   then, I haven't done a lot in flex.
    
   New version of this patch attached.  I think the only change is that
   I modified the README file.
     
   -Kevin
   
   
   

2. Re: Multiple setup steps for isolation tests

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2012-09-04T03:21:41Z

   "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
   >> Tom Lane  wrote:
   >> 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".
    
   > I tried that first, but had shift/reduce conflicts.
   
   [ scratches head ... ]  Dunno what you did exactly, but the attached
   version works fine for me.
   
   			regards, tom lane