Commit Graph

4 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Tom Lane a443c1b2d6 Allow non-quoted identifiers as isolation test session/step names.
For no obvious reason, isolationtester has always insisted that
session and step names be written with double quotes.  This is
fairly tedious and does little for test readability, especially
since the names that people actually choose almost always look
like normal identifiers.  Hence, let's tweak the lexer to allow
SQL-like identifiers not only double-quoted strings.

(They're SQL-like, not exactly SQL, because I didn't add any
case-folding logic.  Also there's no provision for U&"..." names,
not that anyone's likely to care.)

There is one incompatibility introduced by this change: if you write
"foo""bar" with no space, that used to be taken as two identifiers,
but now it's just one identifier with an embedded quote mark.

I converted all the src/test/isolation/ specfiles to remove
unnecessary double quotes, but stopped there because my
eyes were glazing over already.

Like 741d7f104, back-patch to all supported branches, so that this
isn't a stumbling block for back-patching isolation test changes.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/759113.1623861959@sss.pgh.pa.us
2021-06-23 18:41:39 -04:00
Tom Lane 741d7f1047 Use annotations to reduce instability of isolation-test results.
We've long contended with isolation test results that aren't entirely
stable.  Some test scripts insert long delays to try to force stable
results, which is not terribly desirable; but other erratic failure
modes remain, causing unrepeatable buildfarm failures.  I've spent a
fair amount of time trying to solve this by improving the server-side
support code, without much success: that way is fundamentally unable
to cope with diffs that stem from chance ordering of arrival of
messages from different server processes.

We can improve matters on the client side, however, by annotating
the test scripts themselves to show the desired reporting order
of events that might occur in different orders.  This patch adds
three types of annotations to deal with (a) test steps that might or
might not complete their waits before the isolationtester can see them
waiting; (b) test steps in different sessions that can legitimately
complete in either order; and (c) NOTIFY messages that might arrive
before or after the completion of a step in another session.  We might
need more annotation types later, but this seems to be enough to deal
with the instabilities we've seen in the buildfarm.  It also lets us
get rid of all the long delays that were previously used, cutting more
than a minute off the runtime of the isolation tests.

Back-patch to all supported branches, because the buildfarm
instabilities affect all the branches, and because it seems desirable
to keep isolationtester's capabilities the same across all branches
to simplify possible future back-patching of tests.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/327948.1623725828@sss.pgh.pa.us
2021-06-22 21:43:12 -04:00
Alvaro Herrera 54638f5708 Make new isolationtester test more stable
The original coding of the test was relying too much on the ordering in
which backends are awakened once an advisory lock which they wait for is
released.  Change the code so that each backend uses its own advisory
lock instead, so that the output becomes stable.  Also add a few seconds
of sleep between lock releases, so that the test isn't broken in
overloaded buildfarm animals, as suggested by Tom Lane.

Per buildfarm members spoonbill and guaibasaurus.

Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/19294.1456551587%40sss.pgh.pa.us
2016-02-29 16:34:56 -03:00
Alvaro Herrera c9578135f7 Add isolationtester spec for old heapam.c bug
In 0e5680f473, I fixed a bug in heapam that caused spurious deadlocks
when multiple updates concurrently attempted to modify the old version
of an updated tuple whose new version was key-share locked.  I proposed
an isolationtester spec file that reproduced the bug, but back then
isolationtester wasn't mature enough to be able to run it.  Now that
38f8bdcac4 is in the tree, we can have this spec file too.

Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20141212205254.GC1768%40alvh.no-ip.org
2016-02-26 17:11:15 -03:00