Claudio Natoli wrote: > > (circa line 335 of ipc/shmem.c:) > > [snip] > > Doesn't this function still acquire ShmemIndexLock? (i.e. why was this > comment changed?) > > AFAICS this is just whitespace differences. > > With the exception of that missing "break" (Bruce, I guess it goes without > saying, but could you please remove that line from the patch before > applying... and again "Thank you Neil"), these are stylistic/cosmetic and > effect the EXEC_BACKEND code only. > > Would a follow-up patch to correct these, along with the next step of the > fork/exec changes, be acceptable?
Claudio, let's go for a new version of the patch so everyone can see that is being applied. Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
