On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Thomas Munro >> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> To be able to do this, the patch modifies the isolation tester so that >>> it recognises wait_event SafeSnapshot. >> >> I'm not going to say that's unacceptable, but it's certainly not beautiful. > > Perhaps being able to define in an isolation spec a step called > 'wait_event' with a value defined to the wait event to look for would > make more sense?
That'd be a much bigger change, since currently waiting is entirely implicit. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
