Tom Lane wrote: > AgentM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Attached is a patch which corrects the behavior. I verified that the > > patch does not interfere with normal operation (using psql) but > > unfortunately the code path is virtually impossible to test without a > > really slow connection to a postgresql server [which I thankfully > > don't have]. > > I'm still looking for some demonstration (not an unsupported assertion) > that there's an issue here. A patch you cannot test doesn't impress > me at all --- what are the odds that it makes things worse not better?
Well, we have a documented case that we are not following the API. In that case, I don't consider it necessary for someone to provide a reproducable failure (it might be quite rare and therefore hard to demostrate). It is enough we are not following the API and need to fix our code. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
