Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> I think we had some discussions about changing the way that shared
>> memory keys are generated, which might make this a less critical issue.
>> But until something's done about that, this patch looks awfully
>> dangerous.
> But do we yank it out for that reason? I don't think so.
Do you want to put a bright red "THIS FEATURE MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR
DATA" warning in the manual? I think it'd be rather irresponsible of
us to ship the patch without such a warning, unless someone builds a
replacement interlock capability (or gets rid of the need for the
interlock).
regards, tom lane
