> Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> Comments are welcome.
> This is a bad idea. It makes an already-poorly-tested code path
> significantly more fragile, in return for nothing of value.
Are you saying that procsignal.c is the already-poorly-tested one? If
As for "value", I have already explained why we need this in the
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2011-01-02 23:23:19|
|Subject: Re: Recovery conflict monitoring|
|Previous:||From: Peter Geoghegan||Date: 2011-01-02 22:51:13|
|Subject: Re: C++ keywords in headers (was Re: [GENERAL] #include <funcapi.h>)|