On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
<fabriziomello@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>
>> On further notice, I would recommend not to use the same string name
>> for the session and the query identifiers. And I think that inserting
>> only one tuple at initialization is just but fine.
>>[...]
>> Be careful as well to not include incorrect permutations in the
>> expected output file, the isolation tester is smart enough to ping you
>> about that.
>>
>
> Changed the isolation tests according your suggestions.
Thanks, this looks good, and it reduces the patch size back to 26k. I
am switching that as ready for committer, we could argue more about
the lock levels that could be used for other parameters but ISTM that
this patch is taking the safest approach and we could always revisit
some lock levels afterwards.
--
Michael