On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 2:08 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:01 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Right, the only change was to move things around a bit to suport new
> > table AMs. Speaking of which, it looks like the new comment atop
> > CheckForSerializableConflictOut() could use some adjustment. It says
> > "A table AM is reading a tuple that has been modified. After
> > determining that it is visible to us, it should call this function..."
> > but it seems the truth is a bit more complicated than that.
>
> Right. I think that you can go ahead and change it without further input here.
It's only comments, but it'd still be good to get some review since
it's essentially describing the relevant contract. Here's what I came
up with.