On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Andres Freund <and...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
