Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Well, I think reverting surely wouldn't be the right cure. It > fixes a somewhat nasty bug. I'd certainly be prepared to add the > two lines necessary to make it return DELETE_IN_PROGRESS after > trying to understand Kevin's email about predicate.c and going > through the other callers another time.
I'm not actually sure yet whether the current state of affairs causes a problem for the serializable transaction isolation level implementation. The most important thing to me is that whatever is implemented is accurately documented in code comments so I can make any necessary adjustments to code in predicate.c -- or possibly determine that I *do* need some change to HTSV. Right now the HTSV embedded code comments suggest that the enum names and comments don't accurately describe the conditions under which they are returned, but I can't find anything else which does, short of reverse-engineering that from some fairly complex code. Perhaps it would be good if you could provide a concise description of the conditions under which value could currently be returned on this (or the related) thread before we talk about what changes might be needed? Maybe this is clear to others involved in the discussion, but I am not confident that I fully understand what gets returned under what conditions. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers