Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > Ack, sorry, I replied on the original thread, not realizing there was > a second one. Basically, I think the assertion is wrong-headed and > can be adjusted so it doesn't fail, and I attached a patch over there.
Yeah, I saw. Looks plausible to me, but I haven't studied the fine points
of the parallelism code enough to be confident in saying it's good.
regards, tom lane
