Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2019-Jun-13, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>> On 2019-Jun-13, Oleksii Kliukin wrote:
>>
>>> Makes sense. For the symmetry I have included those that perform lock
>>> upgrades in one session and those that doesn’t, while the other sessions
>>> acquire locks, do updates or deletes. For those that don’t upgrade locks the
>>> test checks that the locks are acquired in the correct order.
>>
>> Thanks for the updated patch! I'm about to push to branches 9.6-master.
>> It applies semi-cleanly (only pgindent-maturity whitespace conflicts).
>
> Done, thanks for the report and patch!
>
> I tried hard to find a scenario that this patch breaks, but couldn't
> find anything.
Thank you very much for reviewing and committing it!
Cheers,
Oleksii