On 2016-12-16 12:33:11 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> On 2016-12-16 11:41:49 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > Thoughts? > >>> > >>> Hearing no objections, I've gone ahead and committed this. If that > >>> makes somebody really unhappy I can revert it, but I am betting that > >>> the real story is that nobody cares about preserving T_ID(). > >> > >> I don't care about T_ID, but I do care about breaking extensions using > >> lwlocks like for the 3rd release in a row or such. This is getting a > >> bit ridiculous. > > > > Hmm, I hadn't thought about that. :-) > > Err, that was supposed to be :-( As in sad, not happy.
Both work for me ;) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
