On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, there are cases where you don't need any locking checks, and the > proposed patch ignores that.
I understand that, but shouldn't we then look for a way to adjust the patch so that it doesn't have that issue any longer, rather than just kicking it to the curb? I mean, just saying "patch suxxor, next" doesn't seem like the right approach to something that has apparently already found real problems. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
