Re: Isn't non-TEST_AND_SET code long dead?

The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> 
> Yank her ...
> 
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Kinda makes me wonder what other bit-rot has set in in the non-TAS
> > code, and whether we ought not just rip it out rather than try to
> > "maintain" exceedingly delicate code that's gone untested for years.
> > bufmgr.c, in particular, has behavior that's nontrivially different
> > when HAVE_TEST_AND_SET isn't defined --- who wants to promise that
> > that still works?
> >
> >                       regards, tom lane
> >

On a somewhat related note, what about the NO_SECURITY defines
strewn throughout the backend? Does anyone run the server with
NO_SECURITY defined? And if so, what benefit is that over just
running with everything owned by the same user?

Just curious, 

Mike Mascari