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