"Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Here's an updated version of the patch. There was a bogus assertion in
> the previous one, comparing against mdsync_cycle_ctr instead of
> mdunlink_cycle_ctr.
Applied with minor corrections.
I'm not sure whether we should consider back-patching this. Thoughts?
regards, tom lane