On 6/7/11 1:11 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >> that appear low risk. I seriously doubt that I would consider *any* >> > meaningful change in the locking area to be low risk. > That's a shame. We'll fix it in 9.2 then.
I will point out that we bounced Alvaro's FK patch, which *was* submitted in time for CF4, because of unknown locking impact. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
