On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 9:47 PM vignesh C <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Sept 2026 at 17:11, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Dear Vignesh, > > > > > Thanks kuroda-san. I have addressed this in the v2 version patch > > > attached, however I did not change the lock mode and used the existing > > > AccessShareLock mode itself as I felt that should suffice. This > > > approach also addresses Chao's comments from [1]. > > > > My intention was similar but can we unify codes for re-validation? > > My idea attached here could be applied atop v2. > > Thanks, this looks better. The attached v3 version incorporates these changes. > I have also addressed Amit's suggestion from [1] and the test comment > fixes from [2]. Additionally, the test changes have been consolidated > into a single v3-002 patch. > > [1] - > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1J-W2omce_%2BD%2BNn9syUA3DPOkKHyB1K24pXGCEpfksYkg%40mail.gmail.com > [2] - > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/OS9PR01MB12149C3E3EC7D9738644CEBD8F5BF2%40OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com >
v3.* LGTM. thanks Shveta
