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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to