Tom Lane wrote:
> AgentM <agentm@themactionfaction.com> writes:
> > Attached is a patch which corrects the behavior. I verified that the
> > patch does not interfere with normal operation (using psql) but
> > unfortunately the code path is virtually impossible to test without a
> > really slow connection to a postgresql server [which I thankfully
> > don't have].
>
> I'm still looking for some demonstration (not an unsupported assertion)
> that there's an issue here. A patch you cannot test doesn't impress
> me at all --- what are the odds that it makes things worse not better?
Well, we have a documented case that we are not following the API. In
that case, I don't consider it necessary for someone to provide a
reproducable failure (it might be quite rare and therefore hard to
demostrate). It is enough we are not following the API and need to fix
our code.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073