On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> So the problem seems to be confirmed to exist, but be of low probability
> and low consequences, in back branches. I think we only need to fix it in
> HEAD. The lock acquisition and status recheck that I proposed before
> should be sufficient.
Thanks for digging into this. I failed to notice while reviewing that
the way we were printing the message had changed a bit in the new
code, and I just totally overlooked the existing locking hazards.
Oops.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
