Re: [HACKERS] Serializable lock consistency (was Re: CommitFest wrap-up)

2010-12-19 Thread Florian Pflug
On Dec19, 2010, at 18:06 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I think this patch is in pretty good shape now. Apart from the serious deficiency Robert found :-( I'll still comment on your suggestions though, since they'd also apply to the solution I suggested on the other thread. > The one thing I'm not

Re: [HACKERS] Serializable lock consistency (was Re: CommitFest wrap-up)

2010-12-19 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 17.12.2010 18:44, Florian Pflug wrote: On Dec17, 2010, at 16:49 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote: On 15.12.2010 16:20, Florian Pflug wrote: On Dec14, 2010, at 15:01 , Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Florian Pflug wrote: - serializable lock consistency - I am fairly certain

Re: [HACKERS] Serializable lock consistency (was Re: CommitFest wrap-up)

2010-12-17 Thread Florian Pflug
On Dec17, 2010, at 16:49 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 15.12.2010 16:20, Florian Pflug wrote: >> On Dec14, 2010, at 15:01 , Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Florian Pflug wrote: > - serializable lock consistency - I am fairly certain this needs > rebasing. I don'

[HACKERS] Serializable lock consistency (was Re: CommitFest wrap-up)

2010-12-17 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 15.12.2010 16:20, Florian Pflug wrote: On Dec14, 2010, at 15:01 , Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Florian Pflug wrote: - serializable lock consistency - I am fairly certain this needs rebasing. I don't have time to deal with it right away. That sucks, because I think t