On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> writes: >> The patch doesn't change what the code aims to do, only the way it >> does it. The existing code does this: >> ... >> The net result /should/ be the same, but the second method is >> apparently a little more robust. > > Do we have any idea why? I am always distrustful of random changes made > with no theory as to why they fix a problem. My experience is that such > changes are almost always wrong, once you find out what the problem > *really* is.
Honestly? No. I have a vague hand-wavy idea about there being something preventing us properly modifying the token of an existing process in some configurations, but nothing even remotely jello-like, let alone concrete. On the other hand, I don't see any obvious way for this to cause a regression - which was born out by my (limited) testing in which the original problem remained fixed with the new patch. I'd certainly feel happier if Magnus took a look as well though. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com PGDay.EU 2009 Conference: http://2009.pgday.eu/start -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
