On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > At Tue, 24 Apr 2018 08:52:17 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> > wrote in <20180423235217.gb1...@paquier.xyz> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:21:04PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> > Fine, but that doesn't answer the question of whether we actually need >> > to or should change the behavior in the first place. >> >> Per the last arguments that would be "No, we don't want to change it as >> it would surprise some users": >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180420010402.gf2...@paquier.xyz > > The answer is that the change of behavior is not required to fix > the bug. So I'm fine with applying only (0001 and) 0002 here. >
I have just responded to your first patch (0001). Can you once again summarize what the 0002 exactly accomplishes? I think one of the goals is to fix the original problem reported in this thread and other is you have found the concurrency issue. Is it possible to have separate patches for those or you think they are interrelated and needs to be fixed together? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
