Hi, On 2022-11-05 14:26:44 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 09:51:08PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2022-11-04 23:35:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> True, but do we have any such cases? > > > > I know I hit it twice and gave up on the tests. > > Still, is there any need for a full-blown facility for the case of an > individual backend?
No, and I didn't claim it was. > Using a new function to track that all the changes are in effect is useful > for isolation tests I hit it in tap tests, fwiw. > As far as I know, Gurjeet has been annoyed only with non-user-settable > GUCs for one connection (correct me of course), there was nothing > fancy with isolation tests, yet. Not saying that this is useless for > isolation tests, this would have its cases for assumptions where > multiple GUCs need to be synced across multiple sessions, but it seems > to me that we have two different cases in need of two different > solutions. I didn't say we need to go for something more complete. Just that it's worth thinking about. Greetings, Andres Freund
