On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also, in both Linux and MinGW under option 1 patch I get an OID conflict on
>> OID 3261.
>
> I'll take a pass at fixing this bitrot soon. I'll follow Tom's advice
> about macro collisions on MinGW while I'm at it, since his explanation
> seems plausible.
Attached pair of revised patch sets fix the OID collision, and
presumably fix the MinGW issue (because IGNORE_P is now used as a
token name). It also polishes approach #2 to value locking in a few
places (e.g. better comments). Finally, both patches have a minor
buglet around EXPLAIN ANALYZE output fixed -- the output now indicates
if tuples are pulled up from auxiliary update nodes.
--
Peter Geoghegan
