On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Meh. This line of argument seems to reduce to "we don't need to worry > about performance of this code path because it won't be reached often".
I think I may have over-elaborated, giving you the false impression that this was something I felt strongly about. I'm glad that the overhead has been shown to be quite low, and I think that lexing without the lock held will be fine. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
