On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:48 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> To be able to do this, the patch modifies the isolation tester so that
>> it recognises wait_event SafeSnapshot.
>
> I'm not going to say that's unacceptable, but it's certainly not beautiful.
Perhaps being able to define in an isolation spec a step called
'wait_event' with a value defined to the wait event to look for would
make more sense?
--
Michael