On 2015-08-12 11:59:48 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > Attached patch does it that way. There was also a free-standing > CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() which had no reason that I could see not be a > vacuum_delay_point, so I changed that one as well.
I think we should backpatch this - any arguments against? Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
