Re: a raft of parallelism-related bug fixes

Hi!

Thanks for the answer. Sounds good.

On 2016-02-08 18:47:18 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> and if I'd gone out of my way to say "hey, everybody, here's a patch
> that you might want to object to" I'm sure I could have found some
> volunteers to do just that.  But, you know, that's not really what I
> want.

Sometimes I wonder if three shooting-from-the-hip answers shouldn't cost
a jog around the block or such (of which I'm sometimes guilty as
well!). Wouldn't just help the on-list volume, but also our collective
health ;)

> Unless you or Noah want to take a hand, I don't expect to get that
> sort of review.  Now, that having been said, I think your frustration
> with the way I handled it is somewhat justified, and since you are not
> arguing for a revert I'm not sure what I can do except try not to let
> my frustration get in the way next time.  Which I will try to do.

FWIW, I do hope to put more time into reviewing parallelism stuff in the
coming weeks. It's hard to balance all that one likes to do.

- Andres