Thanks for fixing this!
Best,
Manuel
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:28 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> >> Interesting approach. I certainly prefer it to the alternative
> >> approach of framing the problem as a visibility concern.
>
> > Yes, I certainly like this better than my previous attempt.
>
> Re-reading the patch, I realized that it wasn't using the ExecutorState
> infrastructure anymore, except for a short-lived memory context. So we
> can get an additional small savings by dropping the executor dependency
> and just making a temp context for ourselves.
>
> Pushed with that improvement.
>
> regards, tom lane
