"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 4. The recent changes to remove CheckpointStartLock haven't changed the
>> code path for deferred transactions, so a similar solution might be
>> possible there also.

> Some further discussion required here, I think. That change may actually
> have introduced a slight risk into the patch. Will raise at review.

Given that you're going to be gone for the next two weeks, I'm wondering
when you think that discussion will happen.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to