On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think we have consensus to back-patch the other API changes as well.
> I'll work up a patch for that.
Pushed that as well.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hac
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:39 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
>> I don't have a problem with getting rid of those, it's easy enough to
>> register them inside the worker and it's safe since we start with
>> blocked signals. I seem to remember some discussion about why they were
>> added but I can't find
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> The changes here make it impossible to write a bgworker which properly
>> works in 9.3 and 9.4. Was that intended? If so, the commit message
>> should mention the compatibility break...
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> The changes here make it impossible to write a bgworker which properly
> works in 9.3 and 9.4. Was that intended? If so, the commit message
> should mention the compatibility break...
Yeah, sorry, I probably should have mentioned that. The
