Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-Jun-14, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, after looking around a bit I wonder if this complaint isn't
>> exposing an actual logic bug. Shouldn't skip_tuple_lock have
>> a lifetime similar to first_time?
> I think there are worse problems here. I tried the attached isolation
> spec. Note that the only difference in the two permutations is that s0
> finishes earlier in one than the other; yet the first one works fine and
> the second one hangs until killed by the 180s timeout. (s3 isn't
> released for a reason I'm not sure I understand.)
Ugh.
> I don't think I'm going to have time to investigate this deeply over the
> weekend, so I think the safest course of action is to revert this for
> next week's set.
+1. This is an old bug, we don't have to improve it for this release.
regards, tom lane
