Great that it's not fundamental - and hopefully with this discovery, the
probability you mentioned is being squashed towards zero a bit more :-)
Don't let this early bug detract from what is really a superb piece of work!
regards
Mark
Tom Lane wrote:
>In any case this isn't a fundamental bug, just an insufficiently
>smart safety check. But thanks for finding it! As is, the code has
>a nonzero probability of failure in the field :-( and I don't know
>how we'd have tracked it down without a reproducible test case.
>
>
>
>
