ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> In my understanding from the discussion, we'd better to take "cycle ID"
> approach instead of "making a copy of pendingOpsTable", because duplicated
> table is hard to debug and requires us to pay attention not to leak memories.
> I'll adopt the cycle ID approach and build LDC on it as a separate patch.
Heikki made some reasonable arguments against the cycle-ID idea. I'm
not intending to insist on it ...
I do think there are multiple issues here and it'd be better to try
to separate the fixes into different patches.
regards, tom lane
