> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> >> Remove the 'index deactivation' code, since it provides
> >> no useful protection in the shared- index case.
>
> > Seems a funny reason to me.
>
> Well, as you know I never liked that code; modifying permanent on-disk
> data didn't seem like a sensible way to protect against intra-transaction
> interlock problems. So when I saw a chance to get rid of it, I thought
> we should take it.
You dislike it and so what ?
Are you interested in the discussion ?
> > I've spent a pretty much time only to put back your change.
>
> Why? As far as I know, the modified code does everything you want.
How do you what I want ?
In the first place, there has been no discussion like discussion
in this topic.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue