| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: recent deadlock regression test failures |
| Date: | 2017-04-08 04:22:04 |
| Message-ID: | 17063.1491625324@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Here is an attempt at option 2 from the menu I posted above. Questions:
> 1. Does anyone object to this extension of pg_blocking_pids()'s
> remit? If so, I could make it a separate function (that was option
> 3).
It seems an entirely principle-free change in the function's definition.
I'm not actually clear on why Kevin wanted this change in
isolationtester's wait behavior anyway, so maybe some clarification
on that would be a good idea. But if we need it, I think probably
a dedicated function would be a good thing. We want the wait-checking
query to be as trivial as possible at the SQL level, so whatever
semantic oddities it needs to have should be pushed into C code.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-04-08 04:32:56 | Re: Remaining 2017-03 CF entries |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-04-08 04:09:13 | Re: Remaining 2017-03 CF entries |