Re: [HACKERS] An isolation test for SERIALIZABLE READ ONLY DEFERRABLE

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Thomas Munro
>> <thomas.munro@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