On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd rather fix the issue, than remove the tests entirely. Seems quite
>>> possible to handle blocking on Safesnapshot in a similar manner as pg_blocking_pids?
>>
>> I'll see what I can figure out.
>
> Ouch. These are the other ways I thought of to achieve this:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm%3D1MR4Ug9YsLtOS4Q9KAU9aku0pZS4RhBN%3D0LY3pJ49Ksg%40mail.gmail.com
>
> I'd be happy to write one of those, but it may take a day as I have
> some other commitments.
Please give it a go. I'm dealing with putting out fires with
customers while trying to make sure I have tested the predicate
locking GUCs patch sufficiently. (I think it's ready to go, and has
passed all tests so far, but there are a few more I want to run.)
I'm not sure I can come up with a solution faster than you, given
that. Since it is an improvement to performance for a test-only
environment on a feature that is already committed and not causing
problems for production environments, hopefully people will tolerate
a fix a day or two out. If not, we'll have to revert and get it
into the first CF for v11.
--
Kevin Grittner