From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(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 18:41:46 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob3FMyo+gBo0EmVscYJg-+4UF-8TnAEbFYz42N=e48zPg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?
That'd be a much bigger change, since currently waiting is entirely implicit.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-01-04 18:56:19 | Re: proposal: session server side variables |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-01-04 18:38:17 | Re: rewrite HeapSatisfiesHOTAndKey |