On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Meh. This line of argument seems to reduce to "we don't need to worry
> about performance of this code path because it won't be reached often".
I think I may have over-elaborated, giving you the false impression
that this was something I felt strongly about. I'm glad that the
overhead has been shown to be quite low, and I think that lexing
without the lock held will be fine.
--
Peter Geoghegan