On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> You might persuade me to do it another way, but I can't see how to >> make that way work. Your case seems a stretch. > > You get coincidences with memory allocations surprisingly often, because > things tend to get allocated and free'd in chunks of certain sizes. It's > also pretty fragile in the face of future development. It's not hard to > imagine someone adding code in lock.c to dereference the pointer. Then I think we need a 4th phase (would actually happen first). I will revoke and rework. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
