On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 17:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm really still opposed to the entire concept.  You're proposing to put
> a lot of fragile-looking code into a seldom-exercised error path.

There's certainly not a "lot" of code: the patch just adds a few
syscache lookups, wrapped in a PG_LOCK_NOWAIT() block.

As for fragility, I think the important point is whether it's safe to
siglongjmp() out of LockAcquire(); the rest is just window dressing.


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to