On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 02:12:33PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 23 January 2013 04:35, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Also, perhaps we should
> >> consider Simon's one-liner fix for backpatching this instead of the
> >> original patch you posted?
> >
> > I have no nontrivial preference between the two approaches.
> 
> Sorry, I didn't see this. I guess you saw I applied my one liner and
> backpatched it.

Yes; thanks.

> I'm expecting to apply Noah's larger patch to HEAD with the suggested
> edits. I'll do that last thing in the CF.

What "suggested edits" do you have in mind?

In response to

• Re: lazy_vacuum_heap()'s removal of HEAPTUPLE_DEAD tuples at 2013-01-28 14:12:33 from Simon Riggs

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2013-01-29 03:35:22
	Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2013-01-29 03:23:57
	Subject: Re: Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that