On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2014-05-06 08:48:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > The break because of refcnt == 1 doesn't generally seem to be a good >> > idea. Why are we bailing if there's *any* segment that's in the process >> > of being removed? I think the check should be there *after* the >> > dsm_control->item[i].handle == seg->handle check? >> >> You are correct. Good catch. > > Fix attached.
Committed, thanks. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
