Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Shouldn't we at least make it fail with EINVAL if "who" doesn't match
>> whichever semantics this code is able to implement?

> Yeah, we only ever call it asking for our own process, but I guess we 
> might at some point in the future change that, so it can't hurt.. Want 
> me to do it, or will you?

Please do, I'm going to bed ...

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to