> Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" writes:
>> I just today found that the index-only scan feature has broken
>> SSI. I don't think it will take much to fix, and I'm looking at
>> that, but the first thing I wanted was a test to show the
>> breakage.
>
> Ugh. That sounds like a release-blocker. What's your ETA for a fix?
I have a fix now. I just got done testing it. I will post right
after this, and can apply as soon as I know there are no objections.
>> I couldn't find a way to do that without running VACUUM after
>> loading data to the test tables, and because VACUUM refuses to run
>> in a multi-statement batch I propose the following patch to the
>> isolation testing code, which allows multiple setup blocks. Using
>> this code I now have an isolation test to show the breakage.
>
>> If there are no objections, I will apply this to HEAD and 9.2.
>
> The grammar changes look wrong: I think you eliminated the ability
> to have zero setup steps, no? Instead, setup_list should expand to
> either empty or "setup_list setup".
I tried that first, but had shift/reduce conflicts. I noticed that
there were no *tests* without setup so far, and it's hard to imagine
when that would be sensible, so I didn't feel too bad requiring the
setup list for the test but leaving a single, optional, setup for
each connection. If you can suggest how I could move to a list and
still keep it optional without the shift/reduce problems, I'd be
happy to do it. I just didn't see any obvious way to do it. But
then, I haven't done a lot in flex.
New version of this patch attached. I think the only change is that
I modified the README file.
-Kevin
