"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> When I was investigating this report:
> besides providing a straightforward fix here:
> I noted that there was nearby code which needed review, as it
> didn't seem safe when in a subtransaction. Further review
> confirmed this and didn't turn up any other problems in that
> section of code. So, a fix for this overreaching optimization is
> attached. Note that it is a one-line fix except for some
> additional comments to explain the limitation.
> This patch is in addition to and orthogonal to the first patch
> cited above.
> I will add this one to the 9.1 open items list.
I managed to get a one-line patch wrong. Sorry. 2nd try.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-04-04 18:58:31|
|Subject: Re: GUC assign hooks (was Re: wal_buffers = -1 and SIGHUP) |
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-04-04 18:56:25|
|Subject: Re: time table for beta1|