Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2019-Jun-13, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> On 2019-Jun-13, Oleksii Kliukin wrote: >> >>> Makes sense. For the symmetry I have included those that perform lock >>> upgrades in one session and those that doesn’t, while the other sessions >>> acquire locks, do updates or deletes. For those that don’t upgrade locks the >>> test checks that the locks are acquired in the correct order. >> >> Thanks for the updated patch! I'm about to push to branches 9.6-master. >> It applies semi-cleanly (only pgindent-maturity whitespace conflicts). > > Done, thanks for the report and patch! > > I tried hard to find a scenario that this patch breaks, but couldn't > find anything.
Thank you very much for reviewing and committing it! Cheers, Oleksii
