On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 02:17:44AM +0000, Bossart, Nathan wrote: > I think this is doable by locking the table in SHARE mode. That won't > conflict with the AccessShareLock that expand_vacuum_rel() obtains, > but it will conflict with the ShareUpdateExclusiveLock or > AccessExclusiveLock that vacuum_rel() takes.
Good point. Still is that really worth adding? This implies a test which has at least two roles, one switching the ownership to the other and do so back-and-forth. At least that should be on a different isolation spec file to not complicate the first one. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
