On 2016-04-18 11:07:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On April 16, 2016 6:02:39 PM PDT, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> I went ahead and prepared and tested such a patch; the version for 9.3 > >> is attached. (9.2 is identical modulo some pgindent-induced whitespace > >> difference.) This doesn't look too hazardous to me, so I'm thinking > >> we should apply it. > > > I can't look at the patch just now, but the plan sounds good. Of you rather > > have somebody look art the patch before, I can do tomorrow morning. > > Did you want to actually review this patch, or should I just push it?
No, I'm good, you should push it. I did a quick scan of the patch, and it looks sane. For a second I was concerned that there might be a situation in which this patch increases the total number of semaphore needed, which might make backpatching a bit problematic - but it appears that that'd be a very absurd configuration. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
