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. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers