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
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
