Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > I see the no-index case now: > > > > > > + if (nindexes) > > > + LockBuffer(buf, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE); > > > + else > > > + LockBufferForCleanup(buf); > > > > > > Let's see what Greg says, or revert. > > > > Hm, that's a good point. I could return it to the original method where it > > released the share lock and did he LockBufferForCleanup only if necessary. I > > thought it was awkward to acquire a lock then release it to acquire a > > different lock on the same buffer but it's true that it doesn't always have > > to > > acquire the second lock. > > This rush to apply patches just because no one seems to be capable of > keeping up with them not being reviewed, is starting to get a bit > worrisome.
When things are placed in the patches queue, I need to get feedback if there is a problem with them. I am not sure what other process we can follow, unless we just keep patches there indefinitely, or just ignore them and never place them in the queue. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq