"Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> A much better solution would be to not print the warning every time.
> I think the right solution is to do exactly what you rejected
> upthread, namely adding some kind of stack to track the last time this
> was printed.
I really doubt that the problem is worth so much effort. Your handwavy
solution doesn't work, I think, because you are ignoring the problem
that this code is executed in relatively short-lived processes that
aren't all examining the same database. By the time you got to a
solution that did work it'd be pretty complicated.
regards, tom lane
