Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>> I looked at that and decided it was OK as-is. How do you want to
>> change it?
> The reason that it doesn't need locks is not that there's no other
> process running, but that it was already initialized, in the case when
> found is false.
Mph. The comment is correct, I think, but it applies to the situation
after we pass the !found test, rather than where the comment is. Maybe
we should just move it down one statement?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
