Hi,
On 2022-11-05 14:26:44 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 09:51:08PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2022-11-04 23:35:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> True, but do we have any such cases?
> >
> > I know I hit it twice and gave up on the tests.
>
> Still, is there any need for a full-blown facility for the case of an
> individual backend?
No, and I didn't claim it was.
> Using a new function to track that all the changes are in effect is useful
> for isolation tests
I hit it in tap tests, fwiw.
> As far as I know, Gurjeet has been annoyed only with non-user-settable
> GUCs for one connection (correct me of course), there was nothing
> fancy with isolation tests, yet. Not saying that this is useless for
> isolation tests, this would have its cases for assumptions where
> multiple GUCs need to be synced across multiple sessions, but it seems
> to me that we have two different cases in need of two different
> solutions.
I didn't say we need to go for something more complete. Just that it's worth
thinking about.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
