* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> On the whole though, I don't see anything wrong with pointer-and-count.
> I don't really believe that there's ever going to be a need to enable
> more than a couple of timeouts simultaneously, so I don't want an overly
> complicated data structure for it.
Alright, fair enough.
Zoltan, sorry for the back-and-forth Zoltan and thanks for being
persistent; I'd really like to see this capability added.
Thanks again,
Stephen
