On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > So the problem seems to be confirmed to exist, but be of low probability > and low consequences, in back branches. I think we only need to fix it in > HEAD. The lock acquisition and status recheck that I proposed before > should be sufficient.
Thanks for digging into this. I failed to notice while reviewing that the way we were printing the message had changed a bit in the new code, and I just totally overlooked the existing locking hazards. Oops. -- 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
