On 15 Oct 2011, at 11:31, Florian Pflug wrote: > > Ok, here's a first cut.
So I looked at the patch, and first thing that pops out, is lack of the volatile keyword before the ClientConnectionLostPending variable is defined. Is that done on purpose ? Is that on purpose ? Otherwise the patch itself looks ok. I haven't tested the code, just reviewed the patch itself. And it obviously needs testing, should be easy to follow your original problem description. Btw, I just tried to do it through commitfest.postgresql.org , but before I get my head around on how to add myself to the reviewer list there - I thought I'll just send this response here. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers