Marc Cousin <mcousin@sigma.fr> writes:
> On Tuesday 05 May 2009 16:35:11 Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm ... is it likely that index entries with pathid = 120 are *very* few
>> and far between in jobid order? It looks like we have no
>> CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS calls inside the loop in _bt_next(), which is
>> probably a mistake ...
> In fact. there are none, as I had just removed them and I wasn't sure of it,
> so I was double-checking before telling my colleagues it was OK :)
OK, that explains it then :-(. I'll see about fixing this.
regards, tom lane