Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2023-02-27 12:42:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> I went ahead and coded it that way, and it doesn't look too awful. >> Any objections?
> Looks good to me.
> I think it'd be an indication of a bug around the invalidation handling if the
> terminations were required. So even leaving other things aside, I prefer this
> version.
Sounds good. I'll work on getting this back-patched.
regards, tom lane
