Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Here is an attempt at option 2 from the menu I posted above. Questions:
> 1. Does anyone object to this extension of pg_blocking_pids()'s
> remit? If so, I could make it a separate function (that was option
> 3).
It seems an entirely principle-free change in the function's definition.
I'm not actually clear on why Kevin wanted this change in
isolationtester's wait behavior anyway, so maybe some clarification
on that would be a good idea. But if we need it, I think probably
a dedicated function would be a good thing. We want the wait-checking
query to be as trivial as possible at the SQL level, so whatever
semantic oddities it needs to have should be pushed into C code.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
