Hi Robert, On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 8:35 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I think that this patch is basically correct, except that it's not > correct to set mqh_counterparty_attached when receiver is still NULL. > Here's a v2 where I've attempted to correct that while preserving the > essence of your proposed fix. > This looks good to me, > > I'm not sure that we need a shm_mq_flush(), but we definitely don't > have one currently, so I've also adjusted your patch to remove the > dead prototype. > > Makes sense to me. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee EnterpriseDB: https://www.enterprisedb..com
