On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Do you think that expanding the wait query by default could be
>>> intrusive for the other tests? I am wondering about such a white list
>>> to generate false positives for the existing tests, including
>>> out-of-core extensions, as all the tests now rely only on
>>> pg_blocking_pids().
>> It won't affect anything unless running at transaction isolation level
>> serializable with the "read only deferrable" option.
> Indeed as monitoring.sgml says. And that's now very likely close to
> zero. It would be nice to add a comment in the patch to just mention
> that. In short, I withdraw my concerns about this patch, the addition
> of a test for repeatable read outweights the tweaks done in the
> isolation tester. I am marking this as ready for committer, I have not
> spotted issues with it.

Moved to CF 2017-03.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to