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.

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:

Reply via email to