Re: POC: Lock updated tuples in tuple_update() and tuple_delete()

Hi, Pavel!

On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 1:41 PM Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 at 13:29, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 1:10 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 12:56 PM Aleksander Alekseev
> > > <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > > I'm going to push this if no objections.
> > > >
> > > > I took a fresh look at the patch and it LGTM. I only did a few
> > > > cosmetic changes, PFA v7.
> > > >
> > > > Changes since v6 are:
> > >
> > > Thank you for looking into this. It appears that I've applied changes
> > > proposed by Mason to v5, not v6. That lead to comment mismatch with
> > > the code that you've noticed. v8 should be correct. Please, recheck.
> >
> > v9 also incorporates lost changes to the commit message by Pavel Borisov.
> I've looked through patch v9. It resembles patch v5 plus comments
> clarification by Mason plus the right discussion link in the commit
> message from v8. Aleksander's proposal of Assert in v7 was due to
> changes lost between v5 and v6, as combining connected variables in v5
> makes checks for them being in agreement one with the other
> unnecessary. So changes from v7 are not in v9.
>
> Sorry for being so detailed in small details. In my opinion the patch
> now is ready to be committed.

Sorry for creating this mess with lost changes. And thank you for
confirming it's good now. I'm going to push v9.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov