On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 02:17:44AM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> I think this is doable by locking the table in SHARE mode. That won't
> conflict with the AccessShareLock that expand_vacuum_rel() obtains,
> but it will conflict with the ShareUpdateExclusiveLock or
> AccessExclusiveLock that vacuum_rel() takes.
Good point. Still is that really worth adding? This implies a test
which has at least two roles, one switching the ownership to the other
and do so back-and-forth. At least that should be on a different
isolation spec file to not complicate the first one.
--
Michael