On 2022-May-30, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Was there anything else running on the system? c98763bf51bf also needs to
> > reverted, of course.
>
> Yeah, I agree that we'd better revert c98763bf for the time being.
> And f9900df on top of that?
Yeah, both commits need to be reverted, since the latter depends
critically on the former. I'll get the revert pushed soon.
> I was trying to think of ways to get an isolation test out of that,
> but that proves to be sort of tricky as we need to manipulate the HOT
> chains after the validation phase has begun with the snapshot from the
> build phase. It is easy to block before the validation transaction
> starts, like in WaitForLockersMultiple() beforehand, though.
Hmm. I suppose for the next try of implementing a feature like this,
we'll definitely want to incorporate some tests that can catch problems
of this sort. But I don't think we need to come up with something right
now.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/