On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, there are cases where you don't need any locking checks, and the
> proposed patch ignores that.
I understand that, but shouldn't we then look for a way to adjust the
patch so that it doesn't have that issue any longer, rather than just
kicking it to the curb? I mean, just saying "patch suxxor, next"
doesn't seem like the right approach to something that has apparently
already found real problems.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers