Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Meh. This line of argument seems to reduce to "we don't need to worry
>> about performance of this code path because it won't be reached often".
> I think I may have over-elaborated, giving you the false impression
> that this was something I felt strongly about. I'm glad that the
> overhead has been shown to be quite low, and I think that lexing
> without the lock held will be fine.
OK. Committed after a couple of small further revisions.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
