[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Pflug) writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> So postmaster doesn't clean up pg_listener,
>> It never has. If you're complaining about this patch
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-10/msg00073.php
>> you ought t
Tom Lane wrote:
Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So postmaster doesn't clean up pg_listener,
It never has. If you're complaining about this patch
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-10/msg00073.php
you ought to say so, rather than expecting us to guess it from an
Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So postmaster doesn't clean up pg_listener,
It never has. If you're complaining about this patch
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2005-10/msg00073.php
you ought to say so, rather than expecting us to guess it from an
out-of-context quote
-- Crossposting to pgsql-hackers --
Jan Wieck wrote:
For the record,
Slony-I uses a pg_listener entry as a locking mechanism to prevent
multiple concurrent slon processes serving the same node. The function
Async_Unlisten() is used in a backend function that is called during
slon startup i
