On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: >>> Agreed. We now have $OLD_SUBJECT, but this is a win independently. I have >>> reviewed the code that runs between the old and new call sites, and I did >>> not >>> identify a hazard of moving it as you describe. > >> I looked at this when we last discussed it and didn't see a problem >> either, so I tend to agree that we ought to go ahead and do this, > > +1, as long as you mean in 9.3 not 9.2. I don't see any risk either, > but the time for taking new risks in 9.2 is past. > > Noah, please add this patch to the upcoming CF, if you didn't already.
I re-reviewed this and committed it. Is RESOURCE_RELEASE_AFTER_LOCKS actually used for anything? Is it just for extensions? -- 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
