On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2014-05-06 08:48:57 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> > The break because of refcnt == 1 doesn't generally seem to be a good
>> > idea. Why are we bailing if there's *any* segment that's in the process
>> > of being removed? I think the check should be there *after* the
>> > dsm_control->item[i].handle == seg->handle check?
>>
>> You are correct. Good catch.
>
> Fix attached.
Committed, thanks.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
