Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I have spent some time looking at your patch and testing it. This
> looks sane. A small comment that I have would be to add an assertion
> at the top of perform_work_item to be sure that it is called in the
> memory context of AutovacMemCxt.
Done like that, thanks for reviewing!
regards, tom lane