Claudio Natoli wrote:
> > (circa line 335 of ipc/shmem.c:)
> > [snip]
> > Doesn't this function still acquire ShmemIndexLock? (i.e. why was this
> comment changed?)
> AFAICS this is just whitespace differences.
> With the exception of that missing "break" (Bruce, I guess it goes without
> saying, but could you please remove that line from the patch before
> applying... and again "Thank you Neil"), these are stylistic/cosmetic and
> effect the EXEC_BACKEND code only.
> Would a follow-up patch to correct these, along with the next step of the
> fork/exec changes, be acceptable?
Claudio, let's go for a new version of the patch so everyone can see
that is being applied. Thanks.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2003-12-17 00:12:29|
|Subject: Re: fork/exec patch|
|Previous:||From: Jon Jensen||Date: 2003-12-16 20:18:34|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Double Backslash example patch|