On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 17:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm really still opposed to the entire concept. You're proposing to put > a lot of fragile-looking code into a seldom-exercised error path.
There's certainly not a "lot" of code: the patch just adds a few syscache lookups, wrapped in a PG_LOCK_NOWAIT() block. As for fragility, I think the important point is whether it's safe to siglongjmp() out of LockAcquire(); the rest is just window dressing. -Neil ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
