Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> writes:
> It seems that for all the possibly interesting cases, what we want to wait on
> is an heavyweight lock, which is already what isolationtester detects. Maybe
> we could simply implement something like
> step "<name>" [ WAIT UNTIL BLOCKED ] { <SQL> }
> without any change to the blocking detection function?
Um, isn't that the existing built-in behavior?
I could actually imagine some uses for the reverse option, *don't* wait
for it to become blocked but just immediately continue with issuing
the next step.
regards, tom lane
