Re: Potential G2-item cycles under serializable isolation

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.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan