Horton

Re: Cleanup isolation specs from unused steps

P <apraveen@pivotal.io>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Asim R P <apraveen@pivotal.io>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-08-27T13:35:50Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 9:08 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
wrote:
>
> On 2019-Aug-23, Asim R P wrote:
>
> > As part of the fault injector patch set [1], I added a new "blocking"
> > keyword to isolation grammar so that a step can be declared as blocking.
> > See patch 0002-Add-syntax-to-declare-a-step-that-is-expected-to-block.
>
> One point to that implementation is that in that design a step is
> globally declared to be blocking, but in reality that's the wrong way to
> see things: a step might block in some permutations and not others.  So
> I think we should do as Michael suggested: it's the permutation that has
> to have a way to mark a given step as blocking, not the step itself.

Thank you for the feedback.  I've changed patch 0002 accordingly, please
take another look:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANXE4TdvSi7Yia_5sV82%2BMHf0WcUSN9u6_X8VEUBv-YStphd%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com

Asim

Commits

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

  2. Remove dry-run mode from isolationtester