On 22 March 2017 at 03:35, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 22 March 2017 at 09:49, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >>> Overall, though, I think that 0001 looks far better than any previous >>> iteration. It's simple. It looks safe. It seems unlikely to break >>> anything that works now. Woo hoo! >> >> Funny that this started with "hey, here's a simple, non-invasive >> function for looking up the status of an arbitrary xid". > > Changes made per discussion.
This looks good to me also. Does what we need it to do. I was a little worried by possible performance of new lock, but its not intended to be run frequently, so its OK. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
