On 2014-05-06 13:45:13 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 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.
Heh. Not a fan of film references? :) Thanks, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund 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
