Re: BUG #14150: Attempted to delete invisible tuple

Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> I don't think it's applicable here - s2/3 are woken up by the same lock
>> release. The order in which the OS lets them run primarily determines
>> the result visibility. A sleep wouldn't hide the difference in output
>> order afaics. I guess we could hide the combined steps (insert & sleep)
>> in a function, but ...

> There is an argument to be made for fixing isolationtester to
> accommodate this kind of thing.

The existing accommodation is support for multiple expected-files.
Do you have a better idea?  We can't just let it accept different
response orders as valid in all cases, because often they wouldn't be.

            regards, tom lane