> Tom Lane wrote: > "Kevin Grittner" writes: >> I just today found that the index-only scan feature has broken >> SSI. I don't think it will take much to fix, and I'm looking at >> that, but the first thing I wanted was a test to show the >> breakage. > > Ugh. That sounds like a release-blocker. What's your ETA for a fix? I have a fix now. I just got done testing it. I will post right after this, and can apply as soon as I know there are no objections. >> I couldn't find a way to do that without running VACUUM after >> loading data to the test tables, and because VACUUM refuses to run >> in a multi-statement batch I propose the following patch to the >> isolation testing code, which allows multiple setup blocks. Using >> this code I now have an isolation test to show the breakage. > >> If there are no objections, I will apply this to HEAD and 9.2. > > The grammar changes look wrong: I think you eliminated the ability > to have zero setup steps, no? Instead, setup_list should expand to > either empty or "setup_list setup". I tried that first, but had shift/reduce conflicts. I noticed that there were no *tests* without setup so far, and it's hard to imagine when that would be sensible, so I didn't feel too bad requiring the setup list for the test but leaving a single, optional, setup for each connection. If you can suggest how I could move to a list and still keep it optional without the shift/reduce problems, I'd be happy to do it. I just didn't see any obvious way to do it. But then, I haven't done a lot in flex. New version of this patch attached. I think the only change is that I modified the README file. -Kevin
isolation-setuplist-v2.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
