Re: An isolation test for SERIALIZABLE READ ONLY DEFERRABLE

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: An isolation test for SERIALIZABLE READ ONLY DEFERRABLE
Date: 2017-01-04 07:17:23
Message-ID: CAB7nPqTc6vDjPB8dmwjZu=SBc2myN8dbCi-4ec1Z+V8PAfWrWg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> To be able to do this, the patch modifies the isolation tester so that
>> it recognises wait_event SafeSnapshot.
>
> I'm not going to say that's unacceptable, but it's certainly not beautiful.

Perhaps being able to define in an isolation spec a step called
'wait_event' with a value defined to the wait event to look for would
make more sense?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message 高增琦 2017-01-04 07:31:31 Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-01-04 07:02:11 Re: Commit fest 2017-01 will begin soon!