Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2016-05-05 16:25:38 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> This was basically an attempt to cure a defect in 48354581a and could >> perhaps be lumped under that item.
> It's also an independent performance improvement (sadly), and has the > potential for issues; so there's *some* benefits on keeping this as its > own entry. I left that as-is, but otherwise adopted Robert's suggestions. Thanks for the comments! regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers