On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Do you think that expanding the wait query by default could be >> intrusive for the other tests? I am wondering about such a white list >> to generate false positives for the existing tests, including >> out-of-core extensions, as all the tests now rely only on >> pg_blocking_pids(). > > It won't affect anything unless running at transaction isolation level > serializable with the "read only deferrable" option.
Indeed as monitoring.sgml says. And that's now very likely close to zero. It would be nice to add a comment in the patch to just mention that. In short, I withdraw my concerns about this patch, the addition of a test for repeatable read outweights the tweaks done in the isolation tester. I am marking this as ready for committer, I have not spotted issues with it. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
