Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2016-05-05 16:25:38 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> This was basically an attempt to cure a defect in 48354581a and could
>> perhaps be lumped under that item.
> It's also an independent performance improvement (sadly), and has the
> potential for issues; so there's *some* benefits on keeping this as its
> own entry.
I left that as-is, but otherwise adopted Robert's suggestions.
Thanks for the comments!
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
